Civil Liberties
5 likes1,718 views
The document discusses civil liberties, defined as constitutional protections against government interference, particularly as outlined in the Bill of Rights. It contrasts civil liberties with civil rights, detailing significant amendments and landmark court cases that influence the interpretation and application of these rights, such as the right to free speech and the right to privacy. Key cases like Dred Scott v. Sandford and Griswold v. Connecticut illustrate the complexities and debates surrounding civil rights in America.
Civil Liberties
- 1. Civil Liberties Andrew Martin, B.A.
- 2. Which of the following civil liberties would you be most willing to sacrifice in the interest of promoting national security? Freedom of speech Freedom of the press Freedom to carry a firearm/gun Freedom of assembly None of the above
- 3. Civil Liberties What are civil liberties?
- 4. Civil Liberties Constitutional provisions, laws and practices that protect individuals from government interference. Embodied in the Bill of Rights as prohibitions against government actions that threaten freedom.
- 8. Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights Civil liberties promise freedom from government interference , whereas civil rights guarantee equal treatment by government . -- Steve Voss, America's New Democracy
- 9. Civil Liberties Constitutional provisions, laws and practices that protect individuals from government interference. Embodied in the Bill of Rights as prohibitions against government actions that threaten freedom.
- 10. Civil Liberties Constitutional provisions, laws and practices that protect individuals from government interference. Embodied in the Bill of Rights as prohibitions against government actions that threaten freedom.
- 11. Liberties in the Constitution Writ of Habeas Corpus Prohibition on Bills of Attainder Prohibition on ex post facto laws Prohibition on states from impairing the obligation of contracts .
- 12. Liberties in the Constitution Writ of Habeas Corpus Prohibition on Bills of Attainder Prohibition on ex post facto laws Prohibition on states from impairing the obligation of contracts .
- 13. Liberties in the Constitution Writ of Habeas Corpus Prohibition on Bills of Attainder Prohibition on ex post facto laws Prohibition on states from impairing the obligation of contracts .
- 14. Liberties in the Constitution Writ of Habeas Corpus Prohibition on Bills of Attainder Prohibition on ex post facto laws Prohibition on states from impairing the obligation of contracts .
- 15. Rights of Property in Human Beings
- 16. Rights of Property in Human Beings Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Chief Justice Taney claimed Declaration of Independence, Constitution had not meant to include blacks among citizenry (inferior). Argued Founders believed blacks had no rights whites were compelled to respect .
- 17. Rights of Property in Human Beings Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) Chief Justice Taney claimed Declaration of Independence, Constitution had not meant to include blacks among citizenry (inferior). Argued Founders believed blacks had no rights whites were compelled to respect.
- 18. Civil War Amendments 13 th Amendment – outlawed slavery 14 th Amendment – reversed Dred Scott; Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses 15 th Amendment – States couldn’t deny right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
- 19. Civil War Amendments 13 th Amendment – outlawed slavery 14 th Amendment – reversed Dred Scott; Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses 15 th Amendment – States couldn’t deny right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
- 20. Civil War Amendments 13 th Amendment – outlawed slavery 14 th Amendment – reversed Dred Scott; Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses 15 th Amendment – States couldn’t deny right to vote based on “race, color or previous condition of servitude.”
- 21. On paper vs. reality… Civil Rights Cases of 1883 – Equal Protection clause did not include racial discrimination by private parties. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) – States could require separation of the races on intrastate railways if “equal” facilities for the races were provided .
- 22. On paper vs. reality… Civil Rights Cases of 1883 – Equal Protection clause did not include racial discrimination by private parties. Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) – States could require separation of the races on intrastate railways if “equal” facilities for the races were provided.
- 23. (Selective) Incorporation Framers were more concerned about national government intrusion on rights than about state gov’t. intrusion. Congress intended to use 14 th Amendment to extend reach of Bill of Rights. Privileges and Immunities Clause; Due Process Clause
- 24. (Selective) Incorporation Framers were more concerned about national government intrusion on rights than about state gov’t. intrusion. Congress intended to use 14 th Amendment to extend reach of Bill of Rights. Privileges and Immunities Clause; Due Process Clause
- 25. (Selective) Incorporation Framers were more concerned about national government intrusion on rights than about state gov’t. intrusion. Congress intended to use 14 th Amendment to extend reach of Bill of Rights. Privileges and Immunities Clause; Due Process Clause
- 26. Freedom of Speech First area of civil liberties targeted by doctrine of incorporation. Gitlow v. New York (1925) Today, government may not interfere with the content of speech without a compelling reason. Schenck v. United States (1919) Clear and Present Danger (Oliver Wendell Holmes)
- 27. Freedom of Speech Today, government may not interfere with the content of speech without a compelling reason. Schenck v. United States (1919)
- 29. Limitations on Speech Speech mixed with conduct may be restricted under certain conditions. Symbolic Expression Use of profanity or “fighting words” Hate Speech has generally not been as restricted.
- 30. Limitations on free speech Imminent-lawless action test – Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)…can’t incite harmful actions Libel – published false and harmful information Slander – spoken false and harmful information Classified information – national security documents
- 31. Limitations on free speech Imminent-lawless action test – Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)…can’t incite harmful actions Libel – published false and harmful information Slander – spoken false and harmful information Classified information – national security documents
- 32. Limitations on free speech Imminent-lawless action test – Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)…can’t incite harmful actions Libel – published false and harmful information Slander – spoken false and harmful information Classified information – national security documents
- 33. Limitations on free speech Imminent-lawless action test – Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)…can’t incite harmful actions Libel – published false and harmful information Slander – spoken false and harmful information Classified information – national security documents
- 34. The right to privacy, while not specifically listed in the Constitution, was first upheld in which court case? Griswold v. Connecticut US v. Miller Doe v. Bolton Cox Broadcasting v. Cohn
- 35. Right to Privacy Not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution Many (but not all) constitutional scholars believe a right to privacy is inherent (not explicitly stated) in the Bill of Rights.
- 36. Right to Privacy 3 rd Amendment – prohibition against quartering of soldiers in our homes. 4 th Amendment – prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure. 1st Amendment Rights 9th Amendment – Protection of non-enumerated rights.
- 37. Right to Privacy Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – ruled a right to privacy exists as basis for striking down laws making birth control illegal. Roe v. Wade (1973) – also decided on the basis of this right to privacy. Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003) – Court decided 6-3 that Texas sodomy laws violated due process clause of 14 th Amendment. (“State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”
- 38. Right to Privacy Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – ruled a right to privacy exists as basis for striking down laws making birth control illegal. Roe v. Wade (1973) – also decided on the basis of this right to privacy. Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003) – Court decided 6-3 that Texas sodomy laws violated due process clause of 14 th Amendment. (“State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”
- 39. Right to Privacy Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) – ruled a right to privacy exists as basis for striking down laws making birth control illegal. Roe v. Wade (1973) – also decided on the basis of this right to privacy. Lawrence and Garner v. Texas (2003) – Court decided 6-3 that Texas sodomy laws violated due process clause of 14 th Amendment. (“State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”
- 40. Right to Privacy So-called “strict constructionists” believe right to privacy has no constitutional basis. Extent of the “zone of privacy” still under debate