Bill Of Rights Vs Civil Rights

1. The federal system allows for a balance between the powers of the state and the federal government, with each portion having certain, distinct powers. However, their responsibilities do tend to overlap when concerning the Bill of Rights and the civil liberties guaranteed to citizens. For example, in Barron v. Baltimore, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal Bill of Rights does not apply to the states, defined as the doctrine of selective incorporation. Therefore, each portion of the government can determine the application of the civil liberties promised to citizens. Some, but not all, of the rights granted in the Bill of Rights apply to the states through the 14th Amendment, which expanded coverage in the federal system, since states …show more content…
The Bill of Rights applies to each and every citizen of the United States, while democratic rule of the majority tends to exclude the needs of the minorities. For example, the practice of polygamy by Mormons is certainly a practice of a minority, but this is inhibited by the belief by the majority that polygamy is immoral. Therefore, the democratic rule of the majority inhibited the freedoms of a minority group. The civil liberty of gun ownership is particularly controversial because of its vagueness. While some believe that it is an undeniable civil right, others believe that its purpose was to raise a militia, a need of the founders that is no longer necessary. The civil liberty of the freedom of speech is controversial when the speech is particularly threatening to the government or any citizens, and the freedom of speech can be restricted if it is found to be a clear and present danger. The freedom of religion can be controversial, as some believe that inscriptions referencing God on the coinage and buildings of the federal government could be interpreted as a promotion of religion, while others mandate that religion was an essential part of the founding of the United States and religious references are therefore acceptable, so long as they do not promote or inhibit …show more content…
The exclusionary rule has been weakened recently, as cars, plain sight, those already arrested, and those on probation are not affected by the exclusionary rule. Therefore, the police do not need to obtain warrants for searches and seizures in those cases as they are deemed reasonable. Inevitable discovery and good faith exceptions are further barriers for the exclusionary rule, as they allow for illegal evidence in those circumstances to be used in a trial. Miranda rights have not been enforced as strongly by the Burger Court as they had with the Warren Court, although they are still an important part of police procedures and required for investigation. The court has been divided on issues concerning double investigations, unsure if Miranda Rights still apply in those situations. The reasons for these changes are because of the conservative Court that came into power in the 1980s, and relaxed many of the stringent restrictions enacted by the Warren