Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,138 views
The document discusses the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution ratified in 1791. It states that the majority of court decisions defining American civil liberties are based on provisions in the Bill of Rights. It also notes that civil rights are protected from state government violation by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights
- 4. BILL OF RIGHTS FIRST TEN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS The overwhelming majority of court decisions that define American civil liberties are based on the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791. Note: Civil rights are also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects violation of rights and liberties by the state governments .
- 5. • • • • • •
- 6. • • •
- 7. • •
- 9. • • • •
- 10. • • • • • •
- 11. • • •
- 12. • • •
- 13.
Editor's Notes
- Presenters notes: Civil Liberties and Civil Rights are terms which most people refer to as one and the same. Even the Bill of Rights refers to Civil Liberties and Civil Rights interchangeably. When we define or refer to Civil Liberties we are referring to the specific, fundamental individual rights to protection from unfair governments. These fundamental rights for all citizens have been were challenged as many States were initially slow to adopt them for their residents. However, today all States of the Union uphold the United States’ described Constitutional Civil Liberties and have embraced the same ideals within their own State Constitutions as well. References: American Government online. (2015). Civil liberties and civil rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Presenter’s Notes: Civil liberties protected in the Bill of Rights may be divided into two broad areas: freedoms and rights guaranteed in the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) and liberties and rights associated with crime and due process. Civil rights are also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which protects violation of rights and liberties by the state governments. References: American Government online. (2015). Civil liberties and civil rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Presenter’s Notes: The overwhelming majority of court decisions that define American civil liberties are based on the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791. Civil liberties protected in the Bill of Rights may be divided into two broad areas: freedoms and rights guaranteed in the First Amendment (religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition) and liberties and rights associated with crime and due process. First Amendment: Freedom of speech, press, and the right to public assembly and religious practice Second Amendment: The right to Bear Arms Third Amendment: Restrictions on quartering soldiers with the private land or property owner’s consent Fourth Amendment: Protection from unreasonable search and seizure Fifth Amendment: The right to protect oneself from self-incrimination and to receive due process Sixth Amendment: The right to counsel and prompt, reasonable proceedings Seventh Amendment: The right to proceed with a Civil Trial Eighth Amendment: Protection from cruel and unusual punishment. The right to post Bail. Ninth Amendment: Enumeration Tenth Amendment: The balance of National and State Power* *Civil rights are also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, added to protect violation of rights and liberties by the State governments. References: American Government online. (2015). Civil liberties and civil rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Presenter’s Notes: Case One: Ashcroft vs. ACLU In this case the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and online publishers of pornography fought against Congress’s adoption of the Online Child Protection Act (OLCPA) which would have deeply impacted their business as it would no longer be legal for them to conduct their primary business online. They argued that an act such as the OLCPA would infringe on their First Amendment rights of Freedom of Speech. In this case the District Court agreed. On appeal, a Third Circuit of Appeals affirmed the finding and the pornography publishes were allowed to continue to publish their materials online and unabated. The Third Circuit again prohibited implementation of the act, holding that it was likely to fail the "strict scrutiny" test because it was not narrowly tailored - that is, it prevented online publishers from publishing some material that adults had a right to access - and because it did not use the least restrictive means possible to protect children (the court found that blocking software installed on home computers by parents would do as good a job without preventing free speech) – The Oyez Project, 2015. Case Two: Edwards vs. South Carolina In this case there were 187 petitioners, all of whom were black. They had organized a march on the South Carolina State House grounds in which small groups of fifteen would walk in an open public area protesting the segregation policies in their state. The march was peaceful and orderly, and they were careful not to block pedestrians or traffic. Even so, a group of police officers confronted them and ordered that they disperse or submit to arrest. Instead of dispersing they began to sing religious and patriotic songs. The police arrested and they were convicted of disturbing the peace. Upholding the petitioner’s rights under the First Amendment, the Supreme Court determined that the arrests and convictions violated the rights of the marchers under the first and fourteenth amendments. The Court emphasized that a state cannot "make criminal the peaceful expression of unpopular views" as South Carolina attempted to do. References: The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2015). Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_218 The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2015). Edwards v. South Carolina. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_86
- Presenter’s notes: In the much publicized Supreme Court case of Obergefell, et al. vs. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department of Health, et al. It was argued that same sex marriage should be upheld under the Fourteenth Amendment rights to individual dignity and due process. According to Justice Thomas Kennedy, an interest in personal dignity is central to the due process clause of the 14th Amendment, which says no state shall “deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Dignity can be found inherent in that idea, he argues. The final vote was cast 4-3 in favor of allowing same sex marriage on June 26, 2015. Justice Kennedy acknowledges that people who strongly believe that marriage should be only between a man and a woman will continue to oppose same-sex marriage. That debate should continue, he writes, but the marriages must be allowed. Reference: Schwartz, John. (2015). The New York Times. Highlights From the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/2014-term-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage.html
- Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Anthony McLeod Kennedy was chief proponent for and presented the key arguments for same sex marriage in the case of: OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES, DIRECTOR, OHIO DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ET AL. (June, 2015). Justice Kennedy refers to marriage using a word that appears nine times in his majority opinion: “dignity.” And he depicts the “transcendent” married state as “essential to our most profound hopes and aspirations” (New York Times, 2015). Reference: Schwartz, John. (2015). The New York Times. Highlights From the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/2014-term-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage.html
- Presenter’s notes: Civil rights, in contrast, refer to positive actions of government should take to create equal conditions for all Americans. The term "civil rights" is often associated with the protection of minority groups, such as African Americans, Hispanics, and women. The government counterbalances the "majority rule" tendency in a democracy that often finds minorities outvoted. Civil rights are often debated as one person’s idea of civil rights may actually violate another individual’s perception of individual rights. Usually, Civil Rights are referred to as protections for minorities. Civil rights are also protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified just after the Civil War in 1868, protects violation of rights and liberties by the state governments. Termed as the equal-protection law, the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to protect all citizens no matter their sex, race, creed, or color. Unfortunately, it was nearly a century before the state courts began consistently upholding the Fourteenth Amendment decree. This was particularly so, for example, in the Southern States where African Americans were still considered to be non-human by the majority. Forced segregation and human right violations prevailed against “colored persons” until the early 20th century. Discussion: Although we generally think of Civil Rights in terms of the Civil Rights Movement and Dr. Martin Luther King, Civil Rights laws were also developed to protected other minority groups including Women, Native Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanic Americans to name a few. “The Supreme Court’s position is that race and national origin are suspect classifications-in other words, laws that classify people differently on the basis of their race, (sex), or ethnicity are presumed to have discrimination as their purpose” (Patterson, 2013). References: American Government online. (2015). Civil liberties and civil rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Presenter’s Notes: Brown v. Board of Education Topeka (1954) Argument: A black child, Carol Brown was refused admission to a all-white elementary school and was forced to walk twelve blocks further away to a predominately black school. Verdict: In a unanimous decision, the supreme court ruled that racial segregation of public schools “generates [among black children] a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone” (Patterson, 2013). Lau v. Nichols (1974) Argument: Placing public school children for whom English is a second language in regular classrooms without special assistance violates the civil rights act because it denies them the opportunity to obtain a proper education Verdict: The Supreme Court agreed unanimously in favor of the argument. However, the did not make bilingual instruction mandatory in public schools. This is a case where the individual State’s public school systems were influenced by the Supreme Court decision. Many were prompted to offer the option of bilingual instruction or educational materials for students for whom English was their second language. References: Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
- Fair Housing Act In Texas Dep’t of Housing and Community Affairs v. Inclusive Communities Project, 2015 WL 2473449 (June 25, 2015)(5-4) The Court held that the Fair Housing Act (FHA) prohibits practices that have a discriminatory impact without the need to prove discriminatory intent. Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy pointed to case law interpreting similar statutory language under Title VII and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the fact that 7 all nine circuits that have ruled on the issue have allowed discriminatory impact claims under the FHA, and that Congress implicitly ratified that consistent judicial interpretation when it amended the FHA in 1988. According to Dennis Parker, Director, ACLU Racial Justice Program: The decision is important not because it articulates a new principle, but because it re-affirms long-standing legal precedent that recognizes the purpose and function of the Fair Housing Act passed in 1968. Every court of appeals and all of the agencies responsible for enforcing federal fair housing law have recognized that the struggle to eradicate unfair housing practices should include instances when people are harmed by policies which are neutral on their face, but have discriminatory consequences —regardless of whether there is evidence that the party responsible for the policy intended the discriminatory outcomes (Parker, 2015). References: ACLU. (2015). Defending our rights-US Supreme Court Battles. Retrieved from: https://www.aclu.org/cases/texas-department-housing-community-affairs-v-inclusive-communities-project Parker, D. (2015). https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/why-today-was-battle-won-war-against-racial-discrimination
- Sheriff Lupe Valdez is serving her third term for the citizens of Dallas County. She took the rank of the highest ranking law enforcement officer in the county on January 1, 2005. Sheriff Valdez is the only Hispanic female sheriff in the United States and only one of four female sheriffs in Texas. As sheriff, she continues to work diligently on improvements within the Dallas County Sheriff’s Department. Some of the department’s accomplishments since her election include: The hiring of 400 new detention service officers and the expansion of the freeway management patrol system which covers over 78 miles of in-county highways, the construction of the South Tower Jail Facility, one of the largest direct supervision facilities in the country with the capacity to house 2,304 inmates, the current construction of a 300 bed medical facility within the Lew Sterrett Justice Center. Sherriff Valdez is dedicated to the improvements to the quality of overall healthcare for mentally ill inmates. Sheriff Valdez is one of eight children of migrant farm workers. As a young child, she learned strong work ethics. She worked up to two jobs at a time to put herself through college, earning a Bachelor’s Degree in Business Administration from Bethany Nazarene College, now Southern Nazarene University. She later earned a Master of Arts in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of Texas at Arlington. References: Dallas County Sherriff’s Department. (2015). Dallas County Sherriff. Retrieved from: http://www.dallascounty.org/department/sheriff/sheriff_valdez.php
- References: ACLU. (2015). Defending our rights-US Supreme Court Battles. Retrieved from: https://www.aclu.org/cases/texas-department-housing-community-affairs-v-inclusive-communities-project American Government online. (2015). Civil liberties and civil rights. Retrieved from: http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp Dallas County Sherriff’s Department. (2015). Dallas County Sherriff. Retrieved from: http://www.dallascounty.org/department/sheriff/sheriff_valdez.php Parker, D. (2015). https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/why-today-was-battle-won-war-against-racial-discrimination Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Patterson, T. (2013). The American democracy (11th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc. Schwartz, John. (2015). The New York Times. Highlights From the Supreme Court Decision on Same-Sex Marriage. Retrieved from: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/us/2014-term-supreme-court-decision-same-sex-marriage.html The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2015). Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/2000-2009/2003/2003_03_218 The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law. (2015). Edwards v. South Carolina. Retrieved from: http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1962/1962_86