Civil Liberties & the First Amendment CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Civil Liberties & the First Amendment CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

Civil liberties: the legal constitutional protections against government. (Although liberties are outlined in the Bill of Rights it has been the job of the courts to interpret their meaning).

Yeah well that might be fine for you in Washington D.C., but we here in Mississippi don t plan on giving those freedoms to everybody.

Enforcing the Bill of Rights Due to the federalist system (a national government sharing power with state governments) many state governments considered the Bill of Rights to constrain the national government and not them. Barron v. Baltimore (1833): the Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights restrained the national government, and not states or cities. The Supreme Court says we don t have to listen to the Bill of Rights!

However, after the Civil War and the adoption of the 14 th Amendment it became clearer that states would have to abide the Bill of Rights. The 14 th Amendment is a grab bag of an amendment because it addresses a variety of issues including citizenship, equal protection, due process, and the national debt. The due process clause of the 14 th Amendment: 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.

The process of nationalizing the Bill of Rights incorporation doctrine was solidified under... Gitlow v. New York (1925): the Supreme Court ruled that freedom of speech is a fundamental personal right and liberty protected by the due process clause. Therefore, states MUST also follow the Bill of Rights. The Supreme Court says now you do have to follow the Bill of Rights!

First Amendment - The constitutional amendment that established the 4 liberties: freedom of religion, of speech, of the press, and to assemble. 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.

(RELIGION) Establishment Clause: 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. This has been interpreted as separation of church and state, i.e. government should not create policy that would promote a state religion.

Everson v. Board of Education (1947): In NJ a man sued over a policy that used public tax dollars to refund private school children who took public transportation. The SC ruled that the policy violated the man s 14 th Amendment right he was being deprived of property (his money) without due process. The case highlighted the principles of Establishment Clause by drawing a line between government money and religious activity, and also the Incorporation Doctrine because now states were being told they needed to abide by it.

Engel v. Vitale (1962): the Supreme Court ruled that New York violated the First Amendment when they wrote a prayer to be recited by NY school children. The justices claimed that government should be neutral in the relationship between man and religion and by creating a prayer they were no longer being neutral.

Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971): the Supreme Court ruled that state aid to church-related schools may only be secular and neutral in nature. The Supreme Court decided that government aid to church-related schools must do the following: 1) Have a secular legislative purpose 2) Have a primary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion 3) Nor foster an excessive government entanglement with religion The Lemon Test

(RELIGION) Free Exercise Clause: 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. This has been interpreted as people have the right to worship or not worship as they choose. The Supreme Court has ruled people have the right to believe what they want, but not necessarily practice as they choose. Oregon v. Smith (1990) drugs.

(SPEECH & PRESS) First Amendment 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. No, not exactly. Does that mean I get to say and publish whatever I want? WE get to interpret what the Constitution means. But it says, Congress shall make no law...

Generally speaking the Supreme Court has viewed the freedoms of speech and press to be unrestricted until such speech begins to affect other people. Schenck v. United States (1919): The SC upheld the conviction of a Socialist who impeded the WWI war effort by urging young men to resist the draft. The Supreme Court ruled that the government could limit speech if it provokes a clear and present danger. So I guess I can t yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

What about obscenity? Roth v. United States (1957): The SC ruled that obscenity was not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press. Miller v. California (1973): The SC ruled that community standards needed to be applied when legislating what was and was not obscene speech. According to Miller v. California, a book, film, recording, or other piece of material is legally obscene if... the average person applying contemporary community standards finds that the work, taken as a whole, tends to excite lust. The work depicts or describes a form of sexual conduct specifically dealt with in an antiobscenity law. The work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

People do not have the constitutional right to be seditious or libel and slander another. Seditious speech: the advocating, or urging of the overthrow of government by force or to disrupt its lawful activities. Libel: the false and malicious use of printed words. Slander: the false and malicious use of spoken words. New York Times v. Sullivan (1964): The SC decided that statements (speech) made about others are libelous only if made with malice and reckless disregard for the truth.

The Supreme Court considers free speech to go beyond the spoken word and also includes symbolic speech. Thus, we have freedom of expression. Texas v. Johnson (1989): The SC struck down a law banning the burning of the American flag on the grounds that such protest was free speech. (The Texas v. Johnson case is an excellent example of judicial review and also an example of how the courts carry out unpopular / undemocratic actions if they deem it necessary). Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District, (1969)

(ASSEMBLE) First Amendment 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. This has largely been viewed as the right to form interest groups, political parties, as well as picket, parade, and protest.

Restrictions on the right to assemble can come about when such gatherings disrupt public order or interfere with others private property.

YES! Exactly. So rights are relative, but not absolute?