Civil Liberties And Civil Rights

Front 1

Incorporation

Back 1

View that most of the protection of the Bill of Rights apply to the state government through the fourteenth amendment' due process

Front 2

Definition of Civil Liberties

Back 2

The Legal constitutional protetions one has against the government. Civil Liberties are formally set down in the constitution, bill of rights, court and legislative decisions

Front 3

Def of Bill of Rights

Back 3

The First 10 Amendments to the consititions; list all restrictions on the Power of the Government ; Only concerns national gov not states

Front 4

Barron v. Baltimore

Back 4

Supreme court rules that the bill of rights does not apply to the states

Front 5

Gitlow v. New York

Back 5

Background: Gitlow broke NY Law that made it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government. Arrested and claimed first amendment (freedom of speech) was violated
Ruling: Ruled that the first amendment was a "fundamental personal right" that the state government could not violate (14th Due process also)

Front 6

Incorporation Doctrine

Back 6

Supreme court has in the 20th century used the due process clause of the 14th amendment to apply bill of rights to the states)

Front 7

Due Process Clause

Back 7

the legal concept that before a person's natural rights (Life, liberty, property) are taken away the government will protect their constitutional legal rights "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, property without due process"

Front 8

Selective Incorporation

Back 8

not every bill of right has been incorporated to apply to the states. The Supreme court has incorporated the bill of rights; RIghts are incorporated only if the right is considered "Fundamental and Necessary to scheme of ordered liberty (Palk v. Connecticut)

Front 9

Total Incorporation

Back 9

the belief that all of the rights in the Bill of rights are "Fundamental" and Should be applied to the states. Believers in this doctrine (Justice Hugo black) believe selective incorporation gives judges too much discretion to choose rights that apply to states

Front 10

Two Systems of Total Incorporation

Back 10

Before the incorporation doctrince was accepted two justice systems ecisted in The U.S. with two different standards of due process.The federal system which required to use search warrents, provide attorneys, tell defendants their rights, provide trial by juries and the states which may not have done the same in all cases

Front 11

The First amendment Def

Back 11

The first amendment deals with the four great fereedoms that protects one freedom of expession (Religion, speech, press, assembly)

Front 12

Two clauses of the freedom of religion:

Back 12

Establishment clause and free exercise clause

Front 13

Establishment clause:

Back 13

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"

Front 14

Wall of separation

Back 14

Thomas Jefferson's interpretation of the establishment clase. He believed that an imaginary wall exists that prevents government and religion to intermingle. Government is to remain neutral

Front 15

Debate over government and religions relationship

Back 15

does the first amendment forbid any form of religion in government (In god we trust)

Front 16

Lemon V. Kurtzman

Back 16

Background: Pennsylvannia pass law allowing the state to reimburse private schools for teachers salaries, textbooks, etc. Most private school catholic
Ruling: SC ruled that the law violated the establishment clause of the 1st amendment

Front 17

The Lemon Test

Back 17

Test outlines in the lemon ruling to determine whether a law has violated establishment clause; 1. Governments action must have a legit. secular purpose. 2. the primary effect of the law must be neutral in regards to advancing or inhibiting religion 3. The governments action must not excessively entange the government with religion; if a government actions violated any part- test failed

Front 18

Engel V. Vital

Back 18

New York state adopted prayer that was recited before school day but was not forced upon students
Ruling: Prayers place was exalted in society, but in relation to man and religion the state must stay neutral

Front 19

Free Exercise clause

Back 19

There is to be no state interference in prohibiting peoples free exercise of religion

Front 20

Belief Vs. Practice

Back 20

people can believe whatever they want even if it is illegal, however when the try to practice their illegal believ the government can stop them

Front 21

Reynolds V. US

Back 21

Mormon practiced polygamy, against law in utah to be married to more than one- claimed to be practicing religion
Ruling: SC Ruled that the intent of the free exercise clause was to prohibit government from prohibiting religious thought; court ruled that relgious actions could be regulated if broke secular laws

Front 22

Oregon v. Smith

Back 22

Two Indians smoked peyote as part of religious ceremony. Fired from drug consoling positions because they smoked. Denied unemployment benefirts because they were fired because of conduct
Ruling: Oregon law didn't violate FEC. Does not prohibit person from disobeying law

Front 23

Definition of Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly

Back 23

A free society depends on the free expression of thought so that the truth can be determined, and the best policies developed. To limit expression limits opposition and endangers any democratic government

Front 24

Freedom of the Press- Prior Restrain

Back 24

A form of government cnsorshio when the government attempts to stop the publication of a work because it disagrees with the content of the work

Front 25

Near V. Minnesota

Back 25

Near called local gov. officials "Jewish Gangsters" Mayor suffered two assaisination attempts and the courts issued injunction closing down paper. Near claimed it violated his 1st amend. right.
Ruling: SC Ruled the first amendment applied to the states through the 14th amenment and the actions of the minn. gov were unconstitutional (Case incorporated freedom of press to the the states)

Front 26

New York Times V. US

Back 26

NYT began publishing Pentagon Papers (proved Johnson Admen. did not fully disclose about vietnam) Nixon got injunction
Ruling: Government does not have the right to censor the papers due to the freedom of the press

Front 27

Def. Freedom of speech and Public Order

Back 27

The number one battleground between 1st amendment protection of speech and the government is the governments role in preserving public order

Front 28

Schenk v. US

Back 28

Socialist disagreed with involvement in WWI, passed out literature urging men to resist the draft- arrested; claimed violated freedom of speech
Ruling: Types of speech not protected especially during wartime

Front 29

Clear and Present Danger Doctrine

Back 29

"The question in every case is whether the words are used in such circumstandces and are of sich nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about substantive evils that congress has right to prevent"- Oliver Homes

Front 30

Types of Speech not protected:

Back 30

obsenities, libel, slander, symbolic speech, commercial speech, hatespeech

Front 31

Def. Obsenities

Back 31

Supreme Court has consistently ruled that material considered obscene is not protected by the first amendment. However the debate is over what is obscene

Front 32

Roth V. US

Back 32

Roth convicted of breaking law by using mail to send obscene materials. Roth advertised through mail of his magazine American Aphrodite
Ruling: SC ruled that obscenities are not protected forms of speech

Front 33

Roth Test

Back 33

Test for determining where the material is obscene. If the Dominant theme is prurient (creates lustful response) and if an "average person with contemporary standards find material obscene

Front 34

Miller V. California

Back 34

Miller was convicted under cali. law that forbid mailing obscene material- Ran mail order "adult" material argued first amendment right
Ruling: Obscenities not protected

Front 35

Miller Test

Back 35

refined what is obscene and rebuked the roth test. Material is obscene if it: Appeals to a prurient interest in sex, the materical depicts offense sexual conduct that is illegal, the work taken as whole lacks any serious "Scientific, Literary, artistic, or politcal value

Front 36

Slaps Test

Back 36

Scientific, Literary, Artistic, Political

Front 37

Libel

Back 37

Publication of false or malicious statements that damange someone's reputation

Front 38

NY Times v. Sullivan

Back 38

NYT took out full page to raise money for civil rights movement in the south, ad claimed the tax evasions charges of MLK
Ruling: Printed with a total disregard fr the truth (otherwise politicians would collect damages for every critique) unless author knew truth, meant to do harm

Front 39

Slander

Back 39

Spoken defamation of character. Hard to prove

Front 40

Tinker v. Des Moines School District

Back 40

Kids wore armbands to school
Ruling: First amendment rights were violated

Front 41

Commercial Speech

Back 41

Advertising can be regulated

Front 42

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Back 42

Regulated kinds of goods that are advertised on broadcast media

Front 43

Hate Speech

Back 43

Hate speech is meant to provoke hate for a certain group of people is protected because the government cannot censor the content of speech

Front 44

Freedom of Assembly

Back 44

Political basis for interest groups, political parties, professional organizations and oganized protests

Front 45

Restrictions of Freedom of Assembly

Back 45

Government can restrict the time, place, and manner of the assembly. This allows the government to plan for the publics safety and possible disruptions

Front 46

National Socialist Party Of America V. Skokie

Back 46

Nazi Party wanted to march through Jewish Town. Town refused. Ruling: nazis rights were violated

Front 47

4th Amendment

Back 47

protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Required on warrant: what and where

Front 48

Probable Cause

Back 48

Police cannot arrest someone without reason. Police must have reasonable belief that someone is guilty

Front 49

Exclusionary Rule

Back 49

Any evidence obtained illegally by police is excluded from being used in court to charge

Front 50

Good Faith Exception

Back 50

Evidence obtained without a valid warrant can be used by police if the police believed the warrant was legal

Front 51

Inevitable discovery doctrine

Back 51

evidence obtained without warrant can be used if police proved they would have discovered evidence anyway

Front 52

Mapp V. Ohio *Incorporates Exclusionay rule of 4th amend*

Back 52

Mapp suspect of bombing. Police Broke into house, gave fake warrant, and found nothing about bomb. Police found child Porn, she was arrested, pleaded 4th; Ruling: SC ruled that her 4th amend. were violated, and cannot use evidence

Front 53

Fifth Amendments

Back 53

Protects the accused

Front 54

Miranda Rights

Back 54

The court also required states to follow the FBI practice to inform rights, Right to remain silent

Front 55

Miranda V. Arizona *Incorporates 5th amend right to remain silent and 6th amend to right to counsel*

Back 55

Miranda was arrested for kidnapping and rape. Confessed to crime under interogation . Only evidence was confession
Ruling: No confession is admissible unless suspect has been read rights

Front 56

Sixth Amendment

Back 56

Outlines rights of the Defendent during the trial (speedy trial, witnesses, crime, attorney"

Front 57

Gideon V. Wainwritght *Incorporated 6th Amend right to counsel*

Back 57

Gideon convicted, too poor for attorney, asked for one denied
Ruled: 6th Amend. Rights were violate

Front 58

8th Amendment

Back 58

Protects the defendent from cruel and unusual punishment

Front 59

Furman v. Georgia

Back 59

Gun went off by accident while escaping robbery, sentenced to death
Ruling: Death penelty was not unconstitutional but its random application was and violated the 14th amend. right of due process and equal protection

Front 60

Gregg v. Georgia

Back 60

Gregg murdered two hitchhikers and sentenced to death claimed cruel and unusual
Ruling: Not Cruel and Unusual

Front 61

Right to Privacy

Back 61

Implied by 3rd, 4th, 5th and 14th, and 9th

Front 62

Griswold v. Connecticut

Back 62

griswold opened planned parenthood, offered birthcontrol which was illegal
Ruled: Right to privacy exists and expecially applied to married couples and family planning

Front 63

Roe V. Wade

Back 63

Roe wanted abortion in Texas
Ruled: State laws that outlaw abortion violate a woman's right to privacy and control of her reproductive

Front 64

Right to Privacy Applies to pregnancy in:

Back 64

first trimister

Front 65

Cases Dealing with establishment clause:

Back 65

Lemon v. Kurtzman, Engel v. Vitale

Front 66

Cases with Free Exercise clause:

Back 66

Reynolds v. US, Oregon V. Smith

Front 67

Cases Dealing with Miranda Rights:

Back 67

Miranda V. Arizona

Front 68

Cases Dealing with Prior Restraint

Back 68

Near v. Minnesota, NY Times v. US

Front 69

Cases Dealing With Libel

Back 69

NY Times V. Sullivan

Front 70

Equal Protection Clause of 14th `

Back 70

Only place where equality

Front 71

Cases involving equal protection clause

Back 71

Plessy V. Ferguson, Brown V. Board of Edu, Korematsu v. US, Reed v. Reed

Front 72

Segregation

Back 72

a policy in which the races are seperated in an effort to protect the power position of the empowered Race

Front 73

De Jure Segrgation

Back 73

segregation policies based on laws passed

Front 74

De facto segregation

Back 74

segregation based upon cicumstances

Front 75

Reconstruction

Back 75

After Civil War the Nation Entered a period of trying to reconstruct and reunify the nation under new order of freed slaves

Front 76

Jim Crows Laws

Back 76

After reconstruction the states in the south passed laws contolling the social roles of the freed slaves. South controlled free slaves by a policy knon as segregation

Front 77

Cases dealing with Segregation

Back 77

Plessy V. Ferguson

Front 78

Plessy V. Ferguson

Back 78

Plessy 7/8 white and was asked to sit in black section refused and arrested, Rulng Spereration of the Races did not imply that african americans were inferior

Front 79

Seperate but equal doctrine

Back 79

if public accomdations were equal but seperate that is did not violate equal protection of the 14th amendment

Front 80

Dixiecrats

Back 80

Southern democrats who blocked the civil rights bills

Front 81

Brown V. Topeka Board of Education

Back 81

Linda brown wanted to go to white school that was closer
Supreme Court Ruled: Violated 14th equal protection clause

Front 82

Civil Rights act of 1964

Back 82

Made racial discimation in places of public accomdations- Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. US

Front 83

Civil Rights Act of 1968

Back 83

Forbid Racial discrimination in the sale and rental of housing

Front 84

Internment Camps

Back 84

Camps Asian Americans were forced into by executive orde, during WWII, 2/3 were Natural Born American ; Korematsu v. US.

Front 85

Affirmative Action

Back 85

A policy designed to provide preferential treatment to members of a perviously or currently disadvantaged group of people to rectify the current problems caused by past abuses ; Bakke v. the regents of the University of California

Front 86

Voting Act of 1965

Back 86

Banned Tests, tremendous increase in black voting