Civil Liberties

1,355
-1

Published on

PowerPoint developed and used by TA Andrew Martin for a lecture on Civil Liberties for PS 101 American Government at the University of Kentucky, Spring 2007.

Published in: News & Politics
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,355
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Civil Liberties

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

×