Civil Liberties Flashcards
What does the US constitution do?
The U.S. Constitution—in particular, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights—protects the freedoms and rights of individuals.
How do we interpret the US constitutions cosntant use of the word “persons”
which over time has grown to mean that even children, visitors from other countries, and immigrants—permanent or temporary, legal or undocumented—
civil liberties
as limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms upon which governments may not legally intrude.
Civil rights
guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and that decisions will be made on the basis of merit rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics.
What was at the core of the arguments Americans made for their independence
The idea that people have fundamental rights and liberties
In writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson drew on the ideas of English philosopher John Locke to express what?
the colonists’ belief that they had certain inalienable or natural rights that no ruler had the power or authority to deny to their subjects.
Why was the idea of adding the bill of rights dismissed at the Constitutional Convention.
The framers of the Constitution believed they faced much more pressing concerns than the protection of civil rights and liberties—most notably keeping the fragile union together in the light of internal unrest and external threats.
What argument did Alexander Hamilton make about what the constitution was intended for?
Alexander Hamilton argued that the Constitution was “merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation” rather than contend with “the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.”
Why did Alexander Hamilton argue against adding the Bill of Rights
He thought some rights might actually be dangerous, because it would provide a pretext for people to claim that rights not included in such a list were not protected.
Did federalists or anti federalists argue for the inclusion of the bill of rights?
anti federalists
Which conflict nearly prevented the ratification of the constitution?
The struggle to have rights clearly delineated and the decision of the framers to omit a bill of rights from the Constitution nearly derailed the ratification process.
If the constitution could go into effect with the support of nine states, why did they need the bigger states?
Because it wouldn’t be effective
To secure majorities in favor of ratification in New York and Virginia, as well as Massachusetts, what was done?
they agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to the Constitution.
Where did John Madison propose the amendments from?
drawing from the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia state constitution, suggestions from the ratification conventions, and other sources.
First Amendment
Right to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances; right to a free press
Second Amendment
Right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia
Third Amendment
Right to not house soldiers during time of war
Fourth Amendment
Right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure
Fifth Amendment
Rights in criminal cases, including due process and indictment by grand jury for capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself
Sixth Amendment
Right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury
Seventh Amendment
Right to a jury trial in civil cases
Eighth Amendment
Right to not face excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment
Ninth Amendment
Rights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution
Tenth Amendment
The Tenth Amendment says that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution. If it isn’t listed, it belongs to the states or to the people.
Did the Bill of Rights expand to the action of the states?
In the decades following the Constitution’s ratification, the Supreme Court declined to expand the Bill of Rights to curb the power of the states,
How did John Marshel (the Chief Justice) explain why the Bill of Rights only applied to the national government?
Explaining the court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that it was incorrect to argue that “the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their [Federal] government.”
what forced a reexamination of the prevailing thinking about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states.
The festering issue of the rights of enslaved persons and the convulsions of the Civil War and its aftermath forced a reexamination of the prevailing thinking about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states.
Why did the gov reexamine their decision to not appliing the Bill of Rights to the states
The festering issue of the rights of enslaved persons and the convulsions of the Civil War and its aftermath
What did the confederates do to restrict the rights of black people?
Pass the black codes
“Black codes”
restricted the rights of formerly enslaved people, including the right to hold office, own land, or vote, relegating them to second-class citizenship.
How did the Radical Republicans respond to the Black codes
members of the Radical Republican faction in Congress demanded that the Black codes be overturned.
What was the Radical Republican’s long term solution to get rid of the black codes
Their long-term solution was to propose and enforce two amendments to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of freed men and women.
What was the Radical Republican’s short term solution to get rid of the black codes
In the short term, they advocated suspending civilian government in most of the southern states and replacing politicians who had enacted these discriminatory laws.
due process clause
reads, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”
selective incorporation
Selective incorporation is the process in which the Supreme Court of the United States ensures that the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are not violated by the states.
3 categories of the provisions of the Bill of rights
-protecting induvidual freedoms
- protect people suspected or accused of criminal activity or facing civil litigation;
-view that the Bill of Rights is not necessarily an exhaustive list of all the rights people have and guarantees a role for state as well as federal government
Which amendments “protect induvidual freedoms”
The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Amendments
Which amendments protect people suspected or accused of criminal activity or facing civil litigation;
Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth
Which amendments have the view that the Bill of Rights is not necessarily an exhaustive list of all the rights people have and guarantees a role for state as well as federal government
Ninth and Tenth
Arguably most extensive amendment
The First Amendment
What does the first part of the first amendment say?
first, it protects people from having a set of religious beliefs imposed on them by the government,
What does the second part of the first amendment say?
it protects people from having their own religious beliefs restricted by government authorities.
establishment clause
The first of these two freedoms
What are the first two freedoms known as
establishment clause
What was common for other governments when the US was formed, that the US didn’t adopt
- the governents would be connected to religion
Why did the US not connect religion to government
Many settlers in the United States came to this continent as refugees from such wars; others came to find a place where they could follow their own religion with like-minded people in relative peace. Even if the early United States had wanted to establish a single national religion, the diversity of religious beliefs within and between the colonies would have made this quite impossible.
Why did states passed laws forbidding government aid to religious schools.
An influx of immigrants from Ireland and eastern and southern Europe brought large numbers of Catholics. Ppl feared the new immigrants and their children would not assimilate,
What happend when the public schools incorporated protestant features?
t these features would come into conflict with the beliefs of children from other Christian sects or from other religious traditions.
Is the establishment clause interpreted more narrowly or broadly today?
broadly
Can the nation or state form a church?
no
What did the supreme court establish in the Lemon v. Kurtzman case?
, the Supreme Court established the Lemon test for deciding whether a law or other government action that might promote a particular religious practice should be allowed to stand.
The lemon test’s first criteria
- The action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion; in other words, policing the boundary between government and religion should be relatively straightforward and not require extensive effort by the government.
The lemon test’s second criteria
- The action or law cannot either inhibit or advance religious practice; it should be neutral in its effects on religion.
The lemon test’s third criteria
- The action or law must have some secular purpose; there must be some non-religious justification for the law.
free exercise clause
limits the ability of the government to control or restrict religious practices. This
Why is the cause of the majority of the controversy of the free exercise clause
Much of the controversy surrounding the free exercise clause reflects the way laws or rules that apply to everyone might apply to people with particular religious beliefs. For example, can a Jewish police officer whose religious belief, if followed strictly, requires them to observe Shabbat be compelled to work on a Friday night or during the day on Saturday?
conscientious objectors
—individuals who claim the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion—
What did the supreme court rule in in Gillette v. United States
that to claim to be a conscientious objector, a person must be opposed to serving in any war, not just some wars.18
What two criteria in the Sherbert Test:
it must show there was a very good reason for the law in question and that the law was the only feasible way of achieving that goal.
purpose of Sherbert Test
to make it very difficult for the federal and state governments to enforce laws against individuals that would infringe upon their religious beliefs.
How did the court eventually narrow the Sherbert test?
as the law was not designed to target a person’s religious beliefs in particular, it was not up to the courts to decide that those beliefs were more important than the law in question.
How did narrowing the sherbert test envoke constroversey?
followers of other religious traditions grew concerned that state and local laws, even ones neutral on their face, might be used to curtail their religious practices.
How did congress respond to the supreme court’s decision to get rid of the sherbert test
decision, Congress passed a law known as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA),
What did congress do after the supreme court struck down of part of their relgious freedom restoration act?
created the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
Who was the RFRA controversial to?
buisnesses
Why was the RFRA controversial to buisnesses?
the application of the RFRA has become problematic in businesses and non-profit organizations whose owners or organizers may share a religious belief while the organization has some secular, non-religious purpose.
What did Schenck v. United States rule?
the Supreme Court ruled that people encouraging young men to dodge the draft could be imprisoned for doing so, arguing that recommending that people disobey the law was tantamount to “falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic” and thus presented a “clear and present danger” to public order.27
What does it mean that the states and federal government can’t engage in prior restraint
the federal government could not in advance prohibit someone from publishing something without a very compelling reason.
obscenity
acts or statements that are extremely offensive under current societal standards.
Controversy over the second amendment
Is this amendment merely a protection of the right of the states to organize and arm a “well regulated militia” for civil defense, or is it a protection of a “right of the people” as a whole to individually bear arms?
When were Second Amendment were reenergized?
After the civil war?
Arguments that 2nd Amendment doesn’t give people the right to own guns?
The Interpretation: Second Amendment protected the right of the states to organize a militia, rather than an individual right,
District of Columbia v. Heller
the Supreme Court found that at least some gun control laws did violate the Second Amendment and that this amendment does protect an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, at least in some circumstances—in particular, “for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”
probable cause
the legal standard for determining whether a search or seizure is constitutional or a crime has been committed; it is a lower threshold than the standard of proof at a criminal trial.
Why do critics argue that probable cause is ineffective
because law enforcement officers are almost always able to get a search warrant when they request one.
