2. Objectives
• Distinguish between Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
• Discuss rights, liberties, and their relevance to you
• Understand the history of the distinction
3. Assignment
• What is a liberty or right you believe is badly neglected? Convince your reader by 1)
explaining a certain issue and how you feel about it 2) using examples from the news
and various court cases to describe how society is grappling/not grappling with it. (1-2
pages, double spaced, 1 inch margins, Times New Roman.)
4. How do we distinguish between
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties?
5. Civil Rights & Civil Liberties
Civil Liberties
• "personal freedoms protected from
government intrusion such as those
listed in the Bill of Rights" (via Cornell
LII)
• "freedoms guaranteed to us by the
Constitution to protect us from
tyranny" (via FindLaw)
Civil Rights
• "civil rights are the legal rights that
protect individuals from
discrimination" (via FindLaw)
• "civil rights laws are established
through the federal government via
federal legislation or case law" (via
FindLaw)
6. Civil Rights & Civil Liberties, continued
Examples of Civil Liberties
• The right to free speech
• The right to privacy (Griswold v.
Connecticut)
• The right to remain silent in a police
interrogation (Miranda v. Arizona)
• The right to be free from unreasonable
searches of your home
• The right to a fair court trial
(via FindLaw, NationalConstitution
Center)
Examples of Civil Rights
• the right to vote (let's look at the
literacy test given in 1964 Louisiana)
• to access government services
• to a public education (Brown v. Board)
(via Britannica, Slate)
7. "Little Bill of Rights"
These are within the text of the Constitution itself, not the first 10 Amendments
• No suspension of the writ of habeus corpus [Article I, Section 9, Clause 2]
(a very good discussion: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus)
• No ex post facto laws (laws apply retroactively) or bills of attainder (the legislature
punishes someone without a trial) [Article I, Section 9, Clause 3]
• No titles of nobility [Article I, Section 9]
• Punishment for Treason only stays with the traitor; no "corruption of blood" [Article III,
Section 3]
8. Review: The 1st Amendment
1st Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedomof speech, or of the press; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress
of grievances."
• Free exercise of religion, "freedom of speech," a free press, and the right to assembly we
readily understand. What about "petition the Government?"
• "Petition the government" may be a moot point – it is about the right to complain to your
representatives and not be harmed. It is about the right to receive a response or a debate
and have representatives be on the record about your grievance. For more, an excellent
discussion: https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/amendments/amendment-
i/interpretations/267
9. Why Civil Liberties and Civil Rights? Why the
distinction?
Christopher W. Schmidt, "The Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Divide."April 2014. Available
at https://scholarship.kentlaw.iit.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=&httpsredir=1&article=33
65&context=fac_schol
Schmidt argues persuasively that the "civil liberties/civil rights" distinction we use is
primarily a product of the Cold War.
At the time, liberal anticommunists – think Harry Truman, a pro-union Democrat who
dropped the atomic bomb and committed forces to Korea – wanted rhetoric that would
promote race relations and also declare a firm commitment to national security.
"Civil Rights" as we know it grew out of this rhetoric. "Civil Liberties" were deemphasized,
as people were worried about communist infiltration. (Schmidt p. 6-7)
10. Why Civil Liberties and Civil Rights? Why the
distinction? (2)
Before the Cold War, there was virtually no distinction between these terms.
Some thoughts on Schmidt's paper:
1. The First Amendment was not interpreted as an abstract right to free speech until
recently. Plenty of people – including opponents of Joe McCarthy – believed civil
liberties would be abused by people who wanted to destroy the country. (p.
It is worth stopping here to think about how free speech actually works. Is it simply an
absence of governmental intrusion? When have you felt freest to speak? When have you
felt others were most comfortable being heard?
2. Schmidt implies that "human rights" rhetoric has "utopian" aspirations beyond civil
rights. Is his characterization of the activist turn to "human rights" correct, or are there
historical factors to which he should be more attentive?
