0 évaluation0% ont trouvé ce document utile (0 vote)
33 vues4 pages
Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion are constitutionally protected against infringement by government. Government can prohibit speech if it endangers national security, wrongly damages reputation of others, or deprive others of basic rights.
Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion are constitutionally protected against infringement by government. Government can prohibit speech if it endangers national security, wrongly damages reputation of others, or deprive others of basic rights.
Freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion are constitutionally protected against infringement by government. Government can prohibit speech if it endangers national security, wrongly damages reputation of others, or deprive others of basic rights.
Due process of law- legal protection- designed to ensure individual rights are respected by government Supreme court use of fourteenth amendment ot protect right exemplifies the continue broadening of civil liberties in law Individual rights are constantly being weighed against demands of society and collective needs of society I) Fourteenth amendment does not protect American from all searches, rather unreasonable ones. A) Challenging to meet policy that demands of security yet not infringe unduly on personal freedom II) Civil liberties-specific individual rights, such as freedom of speech, that are constitutionally protected against infringement by government A) Different from civil rights- which have to do with different groups should be treated equally B) Bill of rights based in 1781 first ten amendments specify certain rights of life, liberty , and property federal government is obliged to protect i) Rights: freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religion (a) speech (a) Can be denied if endangers national security, wrongly damages reputation of others, or deprive others of basic rights (i) Sedition act of 1798 Jefferson pardoned those charged, no ruling during civil war (ii) 1919 Scbenck v United states- upheld constitutionality of Espionage Act 1. Clear and present danger test (iii)1951 upheld laws to make it illegal to advocate overthrow of government late 1950 red scare gone, changed its stance- thus now national security must be endangered before government can prohibit speaking out (iv) Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 KKK speech upheld 1. Two part test(imminent lawless action) 1) directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and 2) likely to produce such action-refinement of clear and present danger test (b) Generally protect symbolic speech burning flag is lawful 1989 (c) Court allows public officials to regulate time, place ,and conditions of public assembly provided the regulations are reasonable and applied fairly to all groups (b) Press (a) New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) prior restraintgovernment prohibition of speech or publication before it occurs wartime reporting exception
ii)
iii) iv) v) vi)
(c) Libel(published) or slander(spoken)- false information harmful to a
persons reputation (a) Higher levels of proof for public officials than private (b) New York Times v Sullivan- must meet proof of actual malice and lowing yet recklessly or deliberately disregarding the truth (d) Obscenity- hard to judge Miller v California 1973 must meet 3 part test (a) 1)sexual conduct in patently offensive way 2)precisely described in law as obscene 3) taken as a whole must appeal to prurient interest and have no redeeming social value- standard should be contemporary community standards- judged in the context of reasonable person- evaluate overall merit rather than its most objectionable feature (i) Porn you watch in privacy is your business, but not child porn thats a nono! (e) Religion (a) Establishment clause- government may not favor one religion over another or support religion over no religion (i) Engel v Vitale 1962 prevent recitation in public school (ii) Displays in public building Van Orden v Perry rejected because display have historical value but McCreary County v American Civil Liberties Union 2005 tell McCreary to tear down display because recent (b) Accommodation Doctrine- aid religious activity if no preference is shown and assistance is of secular nature- providing busing for children attending religious schools (i) Lemon v, Kurtzman 1971- salaries for religious school teacher who teach secular subjects -failed test point 3 1. Lemon tests 1)secular legislative purpose 2) principle effect neither advances or inhibits religion 3) must not foster excessive government entanglement with religion (ii) Zelman v Simmons-Harris tax exempt for students attending religious schools for students in failing public school- they could choose (c) Free exercise clause- any religion you want, but cannot interfere with law (i) Employment Division v Smith 1990- upheld refusal for unemployment benefit for fired for using peyote even because of religion Right to bear arms(2nd amendment) (a) District of Columbia v Heller 2008- posses firearm unconnect to service of militia, self defense lawful (b) McDonald v. Chicago 2010 extend ruling to state level (c) Unclear definition by court Protection against unreasonable search and seizure (fourth amendment) Right to remain silent, cannot be tried twice for same crime if first is declared innocent, cannot be deprived of life, liberty, or property without proper legal proceedings (5th amendment) Right to a jury trail, an attorney, and confront witnesses (6 th amendment) Protection against cruel and unseal punishment, excessive bail or fines (8 th amendment)
vii) Interpretation by supreme court Barron v. Baltimore, originally upheld
applies only to federal and not state government, meaning protection ineffective since stat administer police viii) Fourteenth amendment forced ratified by south states stating no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law (a) Procedural due process- procedures authorities must follow before a person can lawfully be punished for an offense (b) Suspicion phase (a) 14th amendment protects rights of person to be secure in their houses, caught in act of crime can be arrested, suspected of a crime needs warrant by judge (i) Admissibility of evidence found in plain sight, warrantless search for drunk driving, as long as systematic and not arbitrary is fine 1. Indianapolis v Edmund 2001 cannot have roadblocks to search for drugs, not related to highway safety a. Police may not use modern technology to scan the house without warrant (ii) Protects individuals in persons as well as in their homes and vehicles Ferguson v Charleston 2001, cannot be forced to take drug test in hospital if purpose is to report to police more leeway if schools (c) Arrest phase (a) Cannot self-incriminate 5th amendment (b) Miranda v Arizona 1966 police did not warn right to remain silent and to have legal assistance- Miranda warning (d) Trial Phase (a) Johnson v Zerbst 1938 provide lawyers at government expense if they cannot afford legal counsel Gideon v wainwright 1963 extend to state felony (b) Exclusionary rule weeks v United states- cannot use evidence unlawfully obtained united states v Leon 1984 faulty license evidence still admissible (c) Inevitable discovery exception Nix v William 1984 still can find the body even without being lied to confession (e) Sentencing phase (a) Upheld and let congress decide the penalty (b) Atkins v Virginia narrow use of death penalty Panetti 2002 v Quarterman 2007 (i) Outlaw death penalty for mentally retarded juveniles for crimes other than murder , ban extreme punishments on juveniles ix) Right of privacy (a) Frinswold v Connecticut- married couple can use condom none of yo business man- argue bill of rights have underlying right to privacy (a) Zone of personal privacy that government cannot lawfully invade (b) Abortion (a) Roe v Wade 1873 women full freedom to choose abortion within first three month of pregnancy (b) Congress 1994 prevent people from preventing people form entering abortion clinic
(c) Webster v Reproductive Health Services 1989 upheld missouri
legislature that prohibited abortions form being performed and state publicly funded medical facilities (d) Planned Parenthood v Casey (1992) upheld constitutional right to abortion upheld minor need parental conscent. (i) Any restriction is constitutional as long as it does not instill an undue burden on the women (e) Gonzales v Carbart 2007- ban on use of particular type of abortion upheld law that fine abortion during the birth process even if mothers life is endangered (c) Consensual Sexual Relations among Same Sex Adults (a) 1986 Bowers v Hardwick right to privacy does not extend to gay (b) 2003 Lawrence v Texas struck down sodomy laws of 13 states (c) Obergefell v. Hodges 2015 recognize same sex marriage (d) C) Gitlow v, New York 14th amendment to protect 1st amendment right state that states do not have complete authority over what their residents can say and write i) Invalidate state laws restricting expression in speech (fiske v, Kansas), press (Near v. Minnesota) religion, (Hamilton v Regents, University of California), and assembly and petition (Defonge v Oregon)- leads to : III) Selective incorporation- certain of the rights contained in the bill of rights become applicable through the 14th amendment to actions by the state governments (a) Selective because some rights are protected while others not like right to jury B) Selective incorporation fo trail rights- Powell v. Alabama 1932, provide legal counsel for those too poor to hire one, after 8 black men got killed because of lack of one C) Mapp(black women) v Obin 1960- began to help civil rights aswell in addition to liberty. Ruled that evidence from unlawful search cannot be used to obtain a conviction IV) Rights and war on terrorism A) wwII rights removed, Japanese forced to move and Korematsu v United States upheld B) Bush administration customary law protections would not be afforded to individuals it deemed to have engaged in terrorist activity C) Detained combatants imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay 2004 supreme court declared right to challenge their detention in court i) Hamdan v Rumfeld 2006 tribunals unlawful should abide U.S Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Conventions 2008 denied law the prevent appeal to federal court D) Surveillance of suspected terrorist, lets government conduct secret searches, lower bar for wiretapping, increase access to records