american politics and government

PLS 121: American Politics and GovernmentPLS 121: American Politics and Government

American PoliticsAmerican Politicsand Governmentand Government

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

2 / 66

Quick Review

• Statute Law

• Common Law– Case Law

– Precedent Law

3 / 66

Definitional Clarification

• Civil Liberties– What the government cannot do

– Protection of the citizens from the government

• Civil Rights– What the government must do

– Protection of the citizens from each other

4 / 66

Civil Liberties

• What government cannot do

• Bill of Rights

• Amendment XIV

5 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment I:– Congress shall make no law

respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

6 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment II:– A well regulated Militia, being

necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

7 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment III:– No Soldier shall, in time of peace

be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

8 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment IIII:– The right of the people to be

secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

9 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment V:– No person shall be held to answer

for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; …

10 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment V:– … nor shall any person be subject

for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

11 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment VI:– In all criminal prosecutions, the

accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; …

12 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment VI:– … to be confronted with the

witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

13 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment VII:– In suits at common law, where the

value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

14 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment VIII:– Excessive bail shall not be

required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

15 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment VIIII:– The enumeration in the

Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

16 / 66

Bill of Rights

• Amendment X:– The powers not delegated to the

United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

17 / 66

Amendment XIIII (§1):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

18 / 66


Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. …

19 / 66


… But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

20 / 66


No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

21 / 66


The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

22 / 66


The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

23 / 66

Due Process Clause

• "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

• This leads to the Incorporation Doctrine of the US Supreme Court.– That is: The Bill of Rights applies to

the Several States, not just to the Federal Government.


Criminal Rights Court Criminal Rights Court CasesCases

Six Momentous USSC Cases Dealing with the Rights of the Accuses


Momentous Case:Momentous Case:

Olmstead v. United States

277 U.S. 438 (1928)

26 / 66

Olmstead v. US, 1928

• Background:– Roy Olmstead was a suspected

bootlegger. Without judicial approval, federal agents installed wiretaps in the basement of Olmstead's building (where he maintained an office) and in the streets near his home. Olmstead was convicted with evidence obtained from the wiretaps.

27 / 66


• Question:– Did the use of evidence disclosed

in wiretapped private telephone conversations, violate the recorded party's Fourth and Fifth Amendments?

28 / 66


• Findings:– Fourth Amendment: mere

wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. These terms refer to an actual physical examination of one's person, papers, tangible material effects, or home – not their intangible conversations.

– Fifth Amendment: the defendants were not forced to conduct those conversations. Instead, the conversations were voluntarily made between the parties and their associates.

29 / 66


• Results:– This case was reversed by Katz v.

US, 389 U.S. 347 (1967):

• Physical intrusion into the area he occupied was no longer necessary to bring the Fourth Amendment into play.

• "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."



Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643 (1961)

31 / 66

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

• Background:– Dolree Mapp was convicted of

possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.

32 / 66

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

• Questions:– Were the confiscated materials

protected by the First Amendment?

– May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?

33 / 66

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

• Findings:– The Court brushed aside the First

Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."

34 / 66

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

• Results:– It placed the requirement of

excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government.

– That is, evidence gotten unconstitutionally could no longer be used in trials.



Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)

36 / 66

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

• Background:– Gideon was charged in a Florida

state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.

37 / 66


• Question:– Did the state court's failure to

appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?

38 / 66


• Findings (unanimous opinion):– Gideon had a right to be

represented by a court-appointed attorney. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause.

– It was called an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel: "Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."

39 / 66


• Results:– States had to provide legal counsel

for anyone who asked for it.



Miranda v. Arizona384 U.S. 436 (1966)

41 / 66

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

• Background:– In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was

arrested for robbery. When questioned by police, he also confessed to kidnapping, and rape. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted.

42 / 66


• Question:– Does the police practice of

interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?

43 / 66


• Findings:– The Court held that prosecutors

could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

– The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.

44 / 66


• Results:– You have the right to remain silent.

If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.


Momentous CaseMomentous Case::

Furman v. Georgia

408 U.S. 238 (1972)

46 / 66

Furman v. Georgia, 1972

• Background:– Furman was burglarizing a private

home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.

47 / 66


• Question:– Does the imposition and carrying

out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?

48 / 66


• Findings (unanimous):– Yes. The Court's one-page per

curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution.

49 / 66


• Results:– In over two hundred pages of

concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject.

– Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants.



New Jersey v. T.L.O.469 U.S. 325 (1985)

51 / 66

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

• Background:– A New Jersey high school freshman

was caught smoking in a bathroom with someone else.

– A teacher took them to the assistant principal of the school, who questioned them. The other person confessed to smoking. T.L.O., however, denied it. The AP searched TLO's purse and found cigarettes, marijuana, a pipe, rolling paper, plastic bags, letters confirming her actions as a drug dealer and a list of people who owed the student money.

52 / 66


• Question:– Did the search violate T.L.O.'s her

Fourth Amendment rights?

53 / 66


• Findings:– The Supreme Court of the United

States ruled that the search and seizure by school officials without a warrant was constitutional, as long as the search is deemed reasonable.

54 / 66


• Results:– The obvious result that school

officials can search a student's locker as long as they have a reasonable justification.

– The case is also important because of the Courts statement that States have a duty to provide a safe school environment.


Right to Privacy Right to Privacy Court CasesCourt Cases

Two Momentous USSC Cases Dealing with the Right to Privacy



Griswold v. Connecticut

381 U.S. 479 (1965)

57 / 66

Griswold v. CT, 1965

• Background:– Griswold was the Executive

Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

58 / 66


• Question:– Does the Constitution protect the

right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

59 / 66


• Finding:– Yes.

– Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, demonstrate an underlying constitutional right – the right to privacy in marital relations.

60 / 66


• Result:– The right to privacy in marital

relations is explicitly stated as a point of law.



Roe v. Wade

410 U.S. 113 (1973)

62 / 66

Roe v. Wade, 1973

• Background:– Texas resident, Roe, sought to

terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.

– After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. In the first hearing, the appellant could not find the constitutional point and her opponent could not take advantage of it.

63 / 66

Roe v. Wade, 1973

• Question:– Does the Constitution embrace a

woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?

64 / 66

Roe v. Wade, 1973

• Finding:– The Court held that a woman's

right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

65 / 66

Roe v. Wade, 1973

• Results:– The decision gave a woman total

autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.

66 / 66

Next…

• Your presentations begin

• Note how I laid out each of the cases in four parts

• It would behoove you to do the same, as it emphasizes the important issues of the case

american politics and government

Documents

bill of rightsamendment

bill of rightsamendment

process of law

right of trial

public trial

time of war

impartial jury

grand jury