Chapter 10 and Note Bundle
Chapter 10 and Note Bundle pol101
Popular in American Government
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 67 page Bundle was uploaded by Belinda Tagoe on Saturday October 10, 2015. The Bundle belongs to pol101 at Mercer University taught by Dr. Chris Grant in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 82 views. For similar materials see American Government in Political Science at Mercer University.
Reviews for Chapter 10 and Note Bundle
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/10/15
Chapter 5 Fundamental American Liberties Part 1 Keywords 0 Civil liberties 0 Civil rights 0 Natural rights 0 Free Establishment Clause 0 Engel v Vitale 1962 0 Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 0 Dred Scott v Sanford 1857 0 USA Patriot Act 2001 0 National Security Agency NSA 0 American Civil Liberties Union ACLU 0 Edward Snowden 0 US Supreme Court 0 Judicial review 0 Congress 0 President 0 Dwight Eisenhower 0 John Kennedy 0 Lyndon B Johnson 0 Barack Obama 0 Interest groups 0 habeas corpus 0 Bills of attainder 0 EX post factor laws 0 Twentyseventh Amendment 0 Incorporation 0 Free Exercise clause 0 Freedom to believe 0 Freedom to act 0 M inersville School District v Gobitis 1940 0 West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 1943 0 Blue Law Cases 0 Shertber v Verner 1963 0 Compelling state interest 0 Employment Division Department of Human Resources v Smith 1990 0 Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA 0 City of Boerne v Flores 1997 0 HosannaTabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2012 0 Hobby Lobby 0 Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 0 World War I WI 0 Bad tendency test 0 Clear and present danger test 0 Smith Act 1940 0 McCarran Act 1950 0 Joseph McCarthy 0 House UnAmerican Activities Committee 0 Imminent lawless action test 0 United States v O Brien 1968 0 Flag Protection Act 1989 0 United States v Eichman 0 Freedom of assembly 0 Miller Test Civil Liberties individual freedoms that limit government powers 0 They protect our right to think and act without government interference 0 They provide rules to limit government 0 The Bill of Rights specifies some of these rights 0 Right to express our beliefs right to practice religion right to bear arms etc 0 Others are debatable enough to depend more on Supreme Court decisions 0 Right to privacy right to marry freely right to assisted suicide right to abortion etc 0 Someone39s rights might con ict with someone else39s rights 0 This may result from a con ict of interest big business vs consumers etc 0 This may result from a fundamental issue death sentence etc 0 This may result from the differences between individual interests and the public 0 Government resolves con icts between individuals39 rights 0 Civil liberties may be limited when there39s a threat to national security Civil rights use of government action to ensure citizenship rights to all Americans 0 The government must treat all citizens fairly 0 The government must apply laws fairly 0 The government must not discriminate against certain groups of people 0 They de ne who we the people are 0 They give we the people the power to challenge government power th th th th th 0 13 14 15 19 and 26 Amendments 0 Suffrage rights 0 Right to equal treatment before the law 0 Right to due process of law The government can39t make laws against certain races or either gender These are featured in nonauthoritarian governments The main issue in such societies is individual power vs government power Democracy resolves this issue Governments were assumed to have total power before the Enlightenment ideas Challenging government powers was rare Civil rights distinguishes citizens from subjects who can39t challenge government Citizens have special protections under the law Natural rights rights given to individuals by nature They were created by Enlightenment figure John Locke He said that ensuring natural rights was one of government39s main purposes Rights to life liberty and property The Founders valued natural rights and limited government These are called life liberty and the pursuit of happiness in the Declaration of Independence This was stated by Thomas Jefferson Free Establishment Clause Congress can39t create a national religion The Supreme Court interprets Congress as the central government This clause has been controversial Some argue that banning prayer from schools has messed up American society Others say that it follows the Bill of Rights and that the US isn39t a theocracy Engel v Vitale 1962 state governments can39t mandate prayer in public schools Lemon v Kurtzman 1971 this creates the Lemon Test P Piquot The Lemon Test evaluates whether a school has violated the Establishment Clause Is there a secular purpose for this action Does it advance or inhibit religion Does it result in excessive entanglement Dred Scott v Sanford 1857 Black slaves aren39t US citizens Dred Scott couldn39t be considered free in IL and the Wisconsin Territory He was deemed a White man39s property He wasn39t a citizen He couldn39t access the courts where disputes over rights are fought Abolitionists were outraged at the decision This fueled NorthSouth tensions This was repealed after the Civil War USA Patriot Act 2001 this expanded government presence in private livelihoods 0 Law enforcement can intercept emails and conduct wiretaps more easily 0 Law enforcement can access library records and bookstore purchases 0 Law enforcement can hold suspected terrorists for up a week without being charged 0 This was passed under the Bush administration 0 The Bush administration issued an executive order 0 Noncitizens arrested on grounds of terrorism are subject to trial in a military tribunal 0 Usual rules of due process don39t apply 0 Many Americans supported it initially 0 Public support declined as 911 became more removed and distant National Security Agency NSA government agency 0 The NSA has collected large amounts of data from phone calls 0 The NSA has collected large amounts of data from electronic communication 0 It has been very controversial 0 Obama said that he wanted to end the NSA39s data collection American Civil Liberties Union ACLU one of the largest citizens39 group in the US 0 Protecting Americans39 liberties is its main goal 0 It has criticized this legislation 0 It argues that this legislation has infringed on Americans39 privacy 0 It argues that this legislation has violated due process 0 It argues that this legislation is discriminatory 0 It has criticized Obama and Bush for supporting wiretapping of Americans39 phone calls 0 It has criticized Obama and Bush for supporting increased surveillance Edward Snowden whistle blower who revealed government infringements on privacy 0 He unveiled a high level of government spying and data mining by the NSA 0 He ed the United States afterward 0 The Snowden case has tested the limits of civil liberties and divided Americans US Supreme Court highest court of appeal in the US 0 It is subject to political pressures 0 They may be in uenced by the ideology of presidents who appoint them 0 They may be in uenced by the media and public opinion 0 It has relaxed post9ll legislation 0 Its rulings sometimes contradict mainstream opinions 0 Its rulings sometimes favor corporations over individuals 0 Its rulings sometimes oppress racial minorities Japanese Americans African Americans etc 0 It became more conservative in the 1980s and 1990s 0 It explained that the Bill of Rights applied only to the national government 0 This ended around the early 1900s 0 Its rulings in American history have been inconsistent Judicial review A Supreme Court power 0 This enables it to evaluate the constitutionality of congressional legislation Congress legislative power of federal government 0 It sometimes stays out of disputes over rights 0 It sometimes takes actions to limit or expand Americans39 rights Joseph McCarthy senator 0 Americans disliked communism due to the Cold War 0 He exploited Americans39 fear and distrust of communism 0 He led an investigation of suspected communists in the government 0 He failed to discover any cardcarrying communists 0 The Senate censured him in 1954 he died in 1957 Smith Act 1940 illegal to call for the overthrow of the government 0 It was illegal to join groups calling for removing the government House UnAmerican Activities Committee congressional committee 0 This investigated Americans suspected of being communists 0 This ruined the reputations of many Americans Civil Rights Act of 1991 expanded civil rights protection in the workplace Don39t ask don39t tell illegal to be openly gay while military 0 This was repealed in 2011 President the head of the executive branch 0 Presidents are also involved in rights disputes 0 They can have administration of cials lobby the Supreme Court 0 They can persuade Congress to follow their policy initiatives 0 This is easier if the president is popular with the public 0 Their in uence can expand or limit Americans39 rights th Dwight Eisenhower 34 president of the US 0 He hesitated to enforce integration desegregation in the South th John Kennedy 35 president of the US 0 He was more active in civil rights than Eisenhower was 0 He sent Congress a ciVil rights bill in 1963 th Lyndon B Johnson 36 president of the US 0 He was also more active in civil rights than Eisenhower was 0 He passed Kennedy39s bill in 1964 th Barack Obama 44 current president of the US 0 He wanted to close down the Guantanamo Bay detention center 0 Congress refused to fund the transfer of detainees to mainland prisons 0 He decided to ban brutal interrogations cruel and unusual punishment Interest groups Organizations of citizens with a specific interest 0 They39re designed to magnify the power of the individual citizen 0 They engage in fundraising and public relations 0 They publicize their Views 0 They in uence government decisions 0 ACLU 0 NAACP 0 MAAD 0 Christian Coalition 0 Greenpeace 0 NOW 0 AARP 0 Common Cause habeas corpus prisoners are entitled to be brought before a judge 0 Prisoners must be informed of their charges 0 Prisoners must be informed of evidence against them Bills of attainder Laws that deem one person or group guilty and impose punishment without trial 0 The federal and state government can39t pass bills of attainder Ex post factor laws Laws that make an action illegal after the fact 0 The federal and state government can39t pass ex post facto laws States can39t ignore or alter contracts State residents are entitled to the privileges and immunites of the several states 0 No state can discriminate against residents from other states 0 Nonresidents can travel freely 0 Nonresidents can conduct business 0 Nonresidents have access to the state39s courts 0 This doesn39t include higher outofstate college tuition TwentySeventh Amendment Congresspeople can39t vote to earn a higher salary Bill of Rights First ten Amendments of the Constitution 0 AntiFederalists and Federalists didn39t agree on the importance of a Bill of Rights 0 The Federalists argued the Constitution was already a Bill of Rights 0 They argued state constitutions protected individual rights 0 The AntiFederalists argued that the central government would be too powerful without one 0 Congress is the target of the most of the limits on government powers Fourteenth Amendment Granted Blacks citizenship rights 0 It was passed after the Civil War 0 The Supreme Court could require states to protect their citizens39 rights Incorporation Supreme Court extends Bills of Rights protections to the states Free Exercise Clause Congress can t ban the free exercise of religion 0 Free exercise was made to prevent a con ict between religious practices and state goals 0 It has been very controversial for years 0 The Supreme Court distinguishes between the freedom to believe and the freedom to act 0 The freedom to believe is unlimited 0 The freedom to act is regulated by the government 0 The Supreme Court has wavered on religious freedom issues 0 Con icts between religious freedom and social order are commonplace Police Power govemment s ability to protect its citizens and maintain social order Minersville School District v Gobitis 1940 Children must salute the ag 0 The Supreme Court argued that saluting the ag promotes national unity West Virginia State Board of Education v Barnette 1943 Children aren t required to salute the ag 0 This ruling contradicts Minersville School District v Gobitis Blue Law Cases states can designate Sunday as a day of rest 0 This permits Sunday closings 0 This allows states to prohibit the sale of certain merchandise on Sundays 0 The Court said Sunday closure laws no longer contain religious intent Sherbert v Verner 1963 employees can take vacation days that coincide with their religious beliefs 0 Employees are entitled to full work benefits 0 The Court argued that denying work benefits Violates the employee s constitutional rights 0 Limits on religious freedom require a compelling state interest 0 The state must show that it must limit religious freedom to fulfill a fundamental state purpose Employment Division Department of Human Resources v Smith 1990 0 Employers can deny benefits to employees if there s no intentional infringement on religion 0 The Court said that the limit on religious freedom is a result of a law banning illegal activities 0 This ruling contradicts its Sherbert ruling 0 This ruling has banned numerous religious practices 0 Individuals and religious institutions must show that their religious practices are legal 0 The state is relieved of this burden of proof 0 Religious groups consider this ruling a blow to religious freedom Religious Freedom Restoration Act RFRA This revived the compelling state interest test 0 The state must limit the religious practice in the least burdensome way 0 It was supported by a coalition of 90 religious groups City of Boerne v Flores 1997 This struck down the RFRA 0 Congress amended the RFRA to apply to the federal government States passed their own RFRAs to protect religious practices at the state level HosannaTabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 2012 0 Federal employment law can t regulate the hiring practices of religious organizations 0 This prevented the federal government from dictating whom these groups could hire 0 It was deemed the Supreme Court s biggesy religious liberty decision in two decades 0 Some critics argue that the RFRA must be made the law of the land 0 They believe this is the only way to protect religious freedom Hobby Lobby chain of arts and crafts stores The owners brought a case to the Supreme Court Corporations that aren t publicly traded don t need to provide health insurance coverage if doing so con icts with their religious beliefs Ex providing health insurance coverage for an abortion Sedition speech that s critical of the government to promote rebellion This is a frequent target of restrictive legislation The Founders wanted it this way Criticism of government undermined authority Criticism of government undermined patriotism which is especially important during wartime All government levels and Americans struck down radical views and organizations The Court usually made tests to determine whether to protect certain speech or not Alien and Sedition Acts 1798 banned false scandalous writing against the government of the United States State governments banned abolitionist speeches They censored mail to prevent the distribution of abolitionist literature World War I WWI European war lasting from 1914 to 1918 Americans thought freedom of speech and of the press were gone during WWI The government restricted socialist and anarchist views It restricted views calling for revolution and labor unions State governments banned speech calling for violent social change Espionage Act 1917 illegal to obstruct US army recruitimg and enlistments It was illegal to criticize the US government in any way Bad tendency test speech can be banned if it could induce illegal activities Clear and present danger test speech can be banned if it contained threatening language 0 Justice Oliver Holmes articulated this test 0 It was created in Schenck v United States and Abrams v United States 0 It focused on the circumstances in which the language was used 0 It was slow to catch on 0 It was easily misused and manipulated 0 Its emphasis on an obvious and immediate danger faded Smith Act 1940 banned any calls to violently overthrow the government 0 It also banned anyone from joining a group that advocated for this 0 This was a response to growing Cold War tensions McCarran Act 1950 required Communist Party members to register with the US attorney general 0 This was a response to Cold War tensions and a general distrust of communism Joseph McCarthy Republican senator of WI 0 He led the House UnAmerican Activities Committee 0 He was investigating Americans to find communists in the government 0 He deemed some government workers of being communist sympathizers without evidence 0 These accusations ruined many reputations careers and lives Imminent lawless action test advocacy of illegal acts is legal unless it creates immediate illegal acts 0 It was created during Brandenburg v Ohio 1969 0 This replaced the clear and present danger test 0 It s the current standard for regulating political speech United States v O Brien 1968 Burning a draft card at a Vietnam War protest is illegal 0 There was an actual law against burning draft cards 0 The law wasn t designed to limit expression Flag Protection Act 1989 It s illegal to desecrate the American ag 0 This was a response to previous rulings in NY and TX that allowed the burning of the ag 0 Americans were angry over these rulings United States v Eichman This struck down the Flag Protection Act 0 The Supreme Court argued that the act suppressed expression 0 There were failed attempts to pass amendments to ban ag burning 0 Flag burning is protected speech in the US 0 Threatening forms of symbolic expression e g cross burning are banned except in a few cases Freedom of assembly right to peaceably assemble 0 Citizens also have a right to send petitions to the government to address a problem 0 Americans can express their views collectively 0 Their association is a protected form of political expression 0 Citizens don t have to reveal what groups they re associated with 0 Groups with illegal purposes must make their membership lists public 0 Racial and sexual discrimination is illegal in private groups Miller Test gave more control over obscenity to local and state governments 0 Does the work portray offensive images of sexual conduct 0 Does the work lack literary artistic political or scientific value 0 This is based on state definitions of obscenity 0 Pornographers often go to states with the most lenient obscenity laws 0 Court rulings on pornography became more restrictive 0 Conservatives believe pornography and nudity are offensive 0 Feminists believe pornography upholds harmful stereotypes of women and breeds violence 0 Radical feminists and conservatives have similar views on porn Chapter 5 Fundamental American Liberties Part 2 Keywords 0 Fighting words 0 Political correctness 0 Prior restraint 0 Near v Minnesota 0 New York Times Company v United States 0 Libel 0 Communications Decency Act CDA 0 Child Online Protection Act COPA 0 Children39s Internet Protection Act CIPA 0 Stop Online Piracy Act SOPA and Protect IP Act PIPA 0 NRA 0 Brady Bill 0 Crime Bill 0 Due process of law 0 Katz v United States 0 Florence v Board of Chosen F reeholders of County of Burlington 0 Weeks v United States 0 Exclusionary rule 0 Good faith exception 0 Miranda v Arizona 1966 0 1790 Federal Crimes Act 0 Johnson v Zerbst 1938 0 Gideon v Wainwright 1963 0 Cruel and unusual punishment 0 F arman v Georgia 1972 0 McClesky v Kemp 1987 0 Baze v Rees 2008 0 Implied right to privacy 0 Harvard Law Review 0 Griswold v Connecticut 1965 0 Roe v Wade 1973 0 Hobby Lobby 0 Bowers v Hardwick 1986 0 Lawrence v Texas 2003 0 Nancy Cruzan 0 Terri Schiavo Fighting words Words that are supposed to incite violence in listeners 0 The Supreme Court says this speech can be regulated 0 The Court rarely upholds laws that limit fighting words 0 Exceptions language that39s likely to create a clear and present danger 0 The First Amendment doesn39t protect offensive speech 0 Exceptions the speech conveys a political message Political correctness Concept which says that language should be regulated to control its effects 0 It swept the nation in the late 3980s and early 3990s 0 It was most prevalent on college campus 0 It says that language shapes behavior 0 Harmful language ex sexist can incite harmful behavior ex rape spousal abuse 0 Bigoted language should be regulated 0 Political correctness is commonly held by feminists and liberals 0 College campuses passed speech codes 0 These banned speech offensive to women and minorities 0 Critics say political correctness represses free speech 0 The Supreme Court struck down speech codes Prior restraint censorship of the press before its message is published 0 The censored ideas never enter the public domain 0 Their worth can39t be debated 0 It39s therefore seen as a more dangerous form of censorship 0 The Founders disliked it 0 The Supreme Court rarely permits prior restraint Near v Minnesota States can39t restrict what may be published in the press 0 The First Amendment limits restraint on the press to emergencies 0 Example war New York Times Company v United States allowed newspapers to reveal the Pentagon Papers 0 The Nixon administration said these were too sensitive for the public to see 0 Revealing these could jeopardize national security 0 The Pentagon Papers were topsecret documents 0 They contained data about the US involvement in Vietnam 0 The Supreme Court permitted the New York Times and the Washington Times to reveal these 0 National security was too vague to excuse a violation of the First Amendment 0 Allowing the president to violate the First Amendment would make him too powerful Libel Written defamation of character 0 Harmful rumors can easily destroy someone s career and reputation 0 Journalists must write truthfully and responsibly New York Times v Sullivan extended libel beyond the state level 0 Libel became an important part of the First Amendment 0 Public of cials must show that a publication acted with actual malice 0 Actual malice means that the paper knew or didn39t care that the printed information was false 0 Public figures later included anyone whose actions put them in the public eye 0 Political candidates celebrities government officials etc 0 This ruling enabled the press to reveal cases of government corruption 0 Watergate scandal US role in Vietnam 0 The public39s interest in the truth outweighs the protection of a public figure39s privacy Common Decency Act CDA banned distribution or display of indecent material over the Internet 0 The Supreme Court struck down this law 0 The Internet has the same protections as nonelectronic forms of media Child Online Protection Act COPA more narrowly defined than the CDA 0 The Supreme Court struck down this law Children39s Internet Protection Act CIPA federally funded libraries must block harmful material 0 Most of the users will be minors 0 These libraries are obligated to filter out this material 0 Example porn 0 These filters can block legitimate messages and publications Stop Online Piracy Act SOPA and Protect IP Act PIPA Bills that tried to address piracy 0 The Internet allows users to easily upload copyrighted material for free 0 Anyone who downloads copyrighted material for free Without permission is committing piracy 0 SOPA was in the House 0 PIPA was in the Senate 0 They would require Internet providers to monitor their users 0 They would block access to international sites that share files 0 Various Internet firms opposed the bills 0 Google Yahoo Bing Facebook Twitter Tumblr etc 0 They argued these bills would restrict their users39 practices 0 They argued these would sti e free speech and innovations 0 These bills were effectively killed off 0 The issue surrounding the protection of IP remains unresolved The NRA is a powerful interest group It has targeted gun control candidates for defeat It has a strong in uence on gun legislation Brady Bill required background checks on potential gun buyers 0 This imposed a fiveday waiting period on all gun sales 0 It used a local background check until a national background check was established 0 The Supreme Court struck down this law 0 The national government can39t infringe on state matters Crime Bill banned semiautomatic weapons 0 Congress let this ban expire in September 2004 0 It was at the urging of House majority leader Tom DeLay There was a 1995 bill that forbid anyone from carrying weapons near a school 0 The Supreme Court struck down this law 0 The national government can39t infringe on state matters The Second Amendment right to bear arms is valuable to American history Local militias were seen as less dangerous than standing national armies in early American history They could guard against various threats Native Americans British soldiers rebellions etc The militia system was later replaced with a national army There was no infringement on Americans39 liberties with the creation of a national army The Second Amendment was supposed to guard against federal tyranny Advocates of Right to Bear Arms Opponents of Right to Bear Arms Hunting and other gunrelated leisure activities None of the gun rights advocates39 claims are are harmless They39re important to American related to the Second Amendment culture Gun control is a slippery slope Regulating assault weapons could eventually affect sporting and hunting activities Guns are necessary for selfdefense Gun control will leave guns in the hands of criminals since they can acquire weapons from the black market Americans need guns to protect themselves their property and their families against government tyranny The government doesn39t have the constitutional right to regulate gun ownership The Second Amendment only deals with gun ownership by militia members It39s outdated now that the national army has replaced state militias The gun rights advocates are only using constitutional rights to keep their wants and preferences for guns Focusing on rights and not policy complicates the debate too much Tighter gun control laws will bring down gun related violence and deaths No American rights are absolute Rights can be restricted if they can impair others39 right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness That includes the right to bear arms It39s ironic to use weapons to protect against the very government that the Constitution supports The Supreme Court struck down a Washington DC law in 2008 0 This law banned handgun possession in the household 0 The law violated an individual39s right to a gun for selfdefense The right to own guns isn39t unlimited 0 Felons and the mentally ill can39t own handguns 0 No one can own militarygrade weapons 0 State and federal governments can39t violate an individual39s right to bear arms Amendments 4 8 grant many procedural protections 0 protection against unreasonable searches and seizures 0 protection against selfincrimination 0 protection against cruel and unusual punishment 0 guaranteed right to legal advice 0 guaranteed right to speedy and public trial Protecting the rights of the accused limits government power A person is innocent until proven guilty Due process of law laws must be reasonable and fair Those accused of breaking the law and may lose their life liberty or property have various rights 0 right to appear before judges to hear charges and evidence against them 0 right to have legal counsel 0 right to present any contradictory evidence in their defense 0 right to fair trial The Supreme Court expanded the rights of the accused during the 3960s and 3970s 0 They incorporated them so that states had to protect them There was a conservative backlash in the 3980s and 3990s 0 Conservatives felt the legal system had gotten too soft on crime 0 They felt these came at the expense of lawabiding Americans39 rights Katz v United States Police need a search warrant before they can tap phone conversations 0 Conversations were included under the Fourth Amendment 0 Searching cell phones also requires a search warrant 0 The Patriot Act made it much easier to get a warrant Florence v Board of Chosen F reeholders of County of Burlington Suspects are subject to strip searches They can be held in a jail population These apply if the suspect committed a minor crime or hasn39t committed a crime at all 0 Prison security outweighs individual privacy rights Weeks v United States established the exclusionary rule Exclusionary rule illegally obtained evidence can39t be used to convict someone of a crime This includes legitimate evidence of criminal activity It was designed to discourage police corruption It has always been very controversial It can help criminals go free Wolf v Colorado the exclusionary rule is a judicial creation 0 It isn39t a constitutional right 0 It was never incorporated The exclusionary rule was later incorporated during the Mapp v Ohio case The Warren Court 1953 1969 upheld it The Burger and Rehnquist Courts 1969 2005 narrowed the protection it offers Good faith exception All evidence can be used in a civil trial under certain conditions 0 The police are relying on a warrant that was valid at the time 0 The police are relying on a constitutional law 0 The police are relying on a warrant that is obtained in error The Supreme Court has expanded the protections of the 5th Amendment beyond criminal trials 0 Grand jury proceedings 0 Legislative investigations 0 Police interrogations most controversial Court rulings in the early 1900s prohibited police from coercing confessions The Court used a casebycase scrutiny that depended on the totality of the circumstances Miranda v Arizona 1966 police must inform suspects of their rights 0 Right to remain silent 0 Right to have lawyer present during questioning 0 These were designed to prevent selfincrimination 0 This ruling has helped criminals go free despite concrete evidence The public worried that the Supreme Court was getting too soft on crime Crime Control and Safe Streets Act 1968 allowed confessions to be used in federal courts 0 These confessions could depend on the totality of the circumstances rule instead 0 Miranda was still present in the states 0 The Supreme Court struck down the law in 2000 0 It upheld the Miranda ruling 1790 Federal Crimes Act courts had to provide counsel for poor defendants on death row 0 Defendants who weren39t on death row also had a right to counsel 0 The federal government wasn39t required to provide counsel in those cases Johnson v Zerbst 1938 the government must provide counsel to poor defendants in all federal cases 0 Only federal cases carried this obligation Gideon v Wainwright 1963 the Court incorporated the 6th Amendment right to counsel 0 State governments are required to provide counsel 0 Jailed poor people who didn39t have legal counsel had to be tried again or released 0 This happened across the US 0 Conservatives thought the Gideon ruling went outside the Founders39 intentions The Burger and Rehnquist Courts narrowed some of the Gideon protections 0 The right to a courtappointed attorney doesn39t extend beyond one round of appeals 0 This provision includes defendants on death row Many believe the right to counsel is often violated There are state laws that limit who can receive courtappointed counsel EX Anyone who earns over 3000 annually must pay for a lawyer if they39re in WI The cruel and unusual punishment clause has been very controversial 0 What39s considered cruel and unusual punishment The Court has ruled that not all unusual punishments are unconstitutional Electrocution less common over time Lethal injection most common Gas chamber less common over time These are relatively new These are considered to be more merciful than older methods 0 Hanging 0 Firing squad 0 Beheading The Court has allowed capital punishment for all felony cases except 0 Crimes involving mentally retarded individuals 0 Juveniles 0 Crimes that don39t end in the victim39s death Most states have death penalty laws The NAACP formed an alliance with the ACLU and the American Bar Association in the 1970s 0 They argued that death sentences were disproportionately given to Black males 0 This was especially true if they were convicted of rape 0 They argued that this discrimination violated the 8th Amendment 0 They argued that this also violated the equal protection clause 14th Amendment State laws didn39t have consistent death penalty laws 0 They differed on the criteria necessary to receive a death sentence 0 Juries didn39t have uniform standards to rely on 0 Unequal patterns of death sentences developed as a result F urman v Georgia 1972 struck down GA and TX capital punishment laws 0 The justices didn39t agree on the ruling 0 35 states passed new laws to meet the Court39s standards 0 These clarified the standards for capital punishment The Court revived the death penalty in 1976 The justices were very divided over the issue McClesky v Kemp 1987 there was no racial basis in death sentences 0 The Court had become more conservative by this time 0 BlackonWhite homicide was more likely to end with a death sentence than vice versa 0 The Rehnquist Court continued to remove barriers on the death penalty Baze v Rees 2008 legalized KY39s lethal injection practice 0 Other states continued applying lethal injection in response Public support for the death penalty has been waning recently 0 Fears of innocents being put on death row DNA testing exonerated some death row residents DNA testing revealed that many executed individuals were innocent The governors of IL and MD issued a moratorium on death sentences NJ banned the death penalty altogether NJ became the first state to ban it since it was declared constitutional in 197 6 0 Americans overall favor the death penalty The implied right to privacy has been one of the most divisive issues in the US 0 It isn39t explicitly mentioned in the Bill of Rights or the rest of the Constitution 0 Some say the 15 3rd 5th and 9th Amendments reveal an implied right to privacy The right to privacy covers subtle behaviors that could endanger the public The right to privacy may or may not include 0 Birth control contraceptives etc 0 Abortion 0 Prostitution 0 Drug use smoking tobacco cocaine use marijuana use etc 0 Gambling 0 Riding a motorcycle without protective gear helmet etc 0 Driving a car without a seat belt 0 Right to die 0 Unprotected sex 0 GayLesbian sex 0 Age of consent There39s 3 been heated debate over whether such actions should be regulated or not An 1890 article called The Right to Privacy appeared in the Harvard Law Review 0 States started adding privacy rights to their statutory or constitutional laws Griswold v Connecticut 1965 established zones of privacy 0 Americans kept challenging laws that banned birth control 0 They kept challenging laws that banned the release of information about preventing pregnancy 0 CT banned the use of contraceptives 0 CT banned the distribution of information about contraceptives 0 The Court ruled that Amendments 1 3 4 5 and 9 create a zone of privacy 0 Bill of Rights guarantees have penumbras which contain a right to privacy 0 The Court struck down the CT law 0 Zones of privacy include marriage and use of contraceptives 0 Unmarried couples were allowed to use contraceptives in 1972 The Court believed the government should stay out of reproductive matters Abortions in early pregnancy were permitted before the Civil War Every state had banned abortion except for KY by 1910 Abortions were still illegal in the 1960s Roe v Wade 1973 the right to privacy includes abortion 0 It tried to balance between a woman39s right to privacy and a state interest in human life 0 It treated the three trimesters of pregnancy differently 0 A woman could get an abortion in the first three months 0 States can put reasonable regulations on the second three months 0 States have a far more compelling interest in the last three months 0 States can limit or ban abortions if the mom39s life isn39t in danger 0 The Roe ruling sparked a massive debate over abortion States required the consent of husbands or both parents They banned advertising for abortion clinics They imposed waiting periods The Court struck down most of these efforts 0 It later permitted state restrictions in 1977 Congress passed gt30 laws restricting access to abortions 0 It limited federal funding for abortions through Medicaid 0 The Supreme Court upheld this in 1980 Reagan and George HW Bush strongly opposed the Roe ruling 0 Reagan only appointed antiabortion judges to federal courts 0 The Reagan administration actively challenged Roe 0 They failed to strike down the law The Roe and the Hobby Lobby cases continued the longlasting debate on abortion Abortion is largely a partisan issue prolife vs prochoice The Christian Right and the Republican Party reject the idea of a constitutional right to privacy 0 Both groups have been trying to amend the Constitution to ban abortion 0 Righttolife groups in CO OK and MS have proposed personhood amendments 0 These amendments would define life as beginning at conception 0 A developing fetus would have a right to life 0 Abortion would therefore be viewed as murder ie felony illegal 0 The OK Supreme Court struck down this proposed amendment Various state legislatures made it harder to obtain abortions 0 Some have required a woman to view an ultrasound for the fetus Abortion will likely remain a hot topic for years to come Roe and Griswold have created a debate over what might be included under the right to privacy 0 The Court used to avoid extending the right to privacy beyond reproductive rights Bowers v Hardwick 1986 upheld a GA law banning sodomy 0 The Court agreed that GA had a legitimate interest in regulating this behavior 0 This was very controversial 0 Many states criticized the Court39s ruling 0 KY39s Supreme Court struck down KY39s sodomy law 0 GA39s Supreme Court struck down GA39s sodomy law in 1998 on privacy grounds Lawrence v Texas 2003 overturned the Bowers decision on privacy grounds The Court used the equal protection clause to strike down a CO law 0 This law would39ve made it difficult for gays to challenge discrimination in CO courts The states used to deny the right to suspend vital medical treatment 0 Nancy Cruzan became a vegetable after a serious car accident in 1983 0 She remained on life support 0 Her parents asked the doctors take her off life support 0 MO blocked their request 0 The legislature claimed to have an interest in protecting the sanctity of human life 0 The Cruzans argued that the right to privacy covered the right to die 0 The Court agreed with M0 0 Nancy39s wishes were unknown 0 The Court said the right to die depended on the patient39s will or personal wishes The Cruzan precedent carried over into the Terri Schiavo case 0 Sciavo was a vegetable for over 15 years 0 Schiavo didn39t wish to kept alive by artificial means 0 Her husband asked doctors to take her off life support 0 Her parents countered this decision 0 The case was appealed to the Supreme Court 0 The Supreme Court ordered the doctors to remove the tube Conservatives disliked the idea of permitting people to end their lives Public opinion agreed with the law The public disliked Congress39s intervention in Schiavo39s death Assisted suicide is another issue related to the right to die Supporters of Assisted Suicide Opponents of Assisted Suicide Patients should be allowed to choose whether to Assisted suicide violates the Hippocratic Oath continue living in their current state It39s open to abuse Patients may have a terminal illness They may be completely disabled They may be in constant severe pain They may have expensive chronic illnesses They39re entitled to help with ending their lives The Supreme Court ruled that assisted suicide is a state matter There39s a possibility that dying patients will later claim a constitutional right to die OR passed a referendum in 1997 0 This allowed doctors to provide lethal doses of medicine to terminallyill patients 0 John Ashcroft warned that doctors who engaged in assisted suicide would lose their licenses 0 Their license to prescribe federally regulated medicine is a major part of the medical profession 0 A federal appellate court ruled that Ashcroft went outside his authority 0 The Supreme Court upheld the OR law Chapter 6 The Struggle for Equal Rights Part 1 Keywords 0 Civil rights 0 Suspect classifications 0 Strict scrutiny 0 Quasisuspect classifications 0 Intermediate standard of review 0 Nonsuspect classifications 0 Minimum rationality test 0 Racism 0 Northwest Ordinance of 1787 0 Dred Scott v Sanford 1857 0 Abolitionism 0 Emancipation Proclamation 0 Civil War 0 President Andrew Johnson 0 Thirteenth Amendment 0 Black Codes 0 Reconstruction 0 Fourteenth Amendment 0 Fifteenth Amendment 0 Segregation 0 Civil Rights Act 1875 0 Jim Crow Laws 0 Booker T Washington 0 National Association for the Advancement of Colored People NAACP 0 WEB Du Bois 0 Civil Rights Movement 0 Missouri ex rel Gaines v Canada 0 Sweatt v Painter 0 Korematsu v United States Civil rights Citizenship rights protected by the government 0 13th Amendment 0 14th Amendment 0 15th Amendment 0 19th Amendment 0 26th Amendment 0 These didn39t bring immediate socioeconomic change for Blacks There are three levels of classi cations Top Tier suspect Classifications that are rarely constitutional Require a compelling state interest for treating people differently Court subjects suspect classifications to strict scrutiny Strict scrutiny heightened standard of review Careful look at the law and the state39s intent Example laws based on race or religion Middle Tier quasisuspect Classifications that may or may not be constitutional subject to intermediate standard of review Court determines if the law is related to an important state interest Important state interest test easier to meet than compelling state interest test Example laws based on gender Low Tier nonsuspect Classifications that are likely constitutional Least scrutinized tier Subject to minimum rationality test Easy to pass Court asks if state had rational basis for treating people differently Example laws based on age or economic status Gaining suspect status is important for acquiring equal rights Rights are denied to certain groups because of some group characteristic They don39t recognize the true God They39re too uncivilized to enjoy their rights Outsiders don39t deserve the full rights of their citizenship Denying their rights denies them power They remain subordinate to the dominant group Racism institutionalized power inequalities that are based on racial differences It has been very in uential in American culture It has been central to American politics Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery in the northwestern territories Fugitive slaves could still be captured and returned to their owners Dred Scott v Sanford 1857 Blacks aren39t US citizens 0 Blacks don39t have full citizenship rights ex right to access the courts Fugitive Slave Act 1850 Runaway slaves couldn39t testify in court 0 They weren39t granted a trial by jury either 0 This made life more dangerous for northern Blacks Abolitionism national movement to abolish slavery in the US Emancipation Proclamation banned slavery in the rebellious states 0 Lincoln was using economic pressure to retain the Union 0 Freeing the slaves was less important to him than the Union Civil War war between North and South 0 Slavery was one of the many reasons this occurred 0 The war took a heavy toll on both sides 0 The North managed to preserve the Union 0 The Northern Republicans gained control of Congress after the Civil War President Andrew Johnson Democrat from TN 0 He sympathized with the South 0 He tended to con ict with the Republican Congress Thirteenth Amendment banned slavery in the entire US 0 It was ratified in 1865 Black Codes series of laws created by southern White state governments 0 They prevented Blacks from gaining too much power in society 0 They kept Blacks in a subordinate economic and political position 0 They kept as much of slavery as legally possible Reconstruction era of federal government control over southern governments 0 It started in 1865 0 It worked to rebuild the South 0 It was successful initially 0 Blacks could vote 0 Blacks earned local government positions 0 They supported the Republicans39 dominance 0 Reconstruction ran out of steam by 1876 due to a lack of public support Ku Klux Klan KKK terrorist organization in the South 0 They violently responded to Blacks39 new rights 0 They used fear to prevent Blacks from using their rights 0 They used lynchings arson assaults and beatings 0 Congressional attempts to squash the KKK were considered military tyranny Fourteenth Amendment Anyone born or naturalized in the US has full citizenship rights 0 It was originally supposed to grant civil rights to Blacks 0 This was an attempt to ban the Black codes 0 It required due process of the law at the state level Fifteenth Amendment All adult males could vote 0 It was passed in 1870 Segregation 50yearlong era in which Whites and Blacks were separate in all facets of society 0 Democrats regained dominance of the South 0 Southern Democrats eroded Blacks39 new rights 0 All facilities were separated by race 0 Theaters 0 Bathrooms 0 Education 0 Travel 0 Entertainment 0 White facilities were always superior and bettermaintained Civil Rights Act 1875 guaranteed all Americans full and equal access to public facilities 0 The Supreme Court struck down the law 0 It argued that the 14th Amendment applied to states not individuals Jim Crow Laws Southern laws designed to circumvent the 13th 14th and 15th Amendments 0 Poll taxes required a small tax anyone could vote 0 Many Blacks were too poor to afford the tax 0 Literacy tests required potential voters to show literary skills 0 Blacks were denied an education 0 They couldn39t read 0 The grandfather clause exempted anyone whose grandfathers could vote before 1867 0 Blacks couldn39t vote until after 1867 0 This exempted poor illiterate Whites from the literacy and poll taxes 0 They never explicitly denied Blacks voting rights Plessy v Ferguson 1896 established the separate but equal clause 0 Anyone with Black ancestry was deemed Black 0 The Court argued that enforced separation didn39t equal racial superiority 0 White and Colored facilities were legal if they were equal 0 This legalized segregation for decades to come Booker T Washington President of the Tuskegee Institute 0 He supported an accommodationist approach 0 He said Blacks should forget sociopolitical equality 0 He said they should aim for economic opportunity instead 0 Hard work and education would show their merits 0 They39d be granted their rights 0 This was popular with Whites 0 This was very unpopular with Blacks WEB Du Bois Founder of NAACP and other AfricanAmerican groups 0 He argued that Washington would relegate Blacks to secondclass status 0 The NAACP promoted AfricanAmerican civil rights 0 It assisted individual Blacks 0 It raised Whites39 awareness of racism against Blacks 0 It aimed to change legislation and court rulings that discriminated against Blacks 0 Its legal strategy eventually eliminated Jim Crow laws and segregation Civil Rights movement longlasting movement to gain citizenship rights for AfricanAmericans 0 Blacks made major political advances in the North 0 They joined a coalition supporting FDR39s New Deal 0 These developments convinced the NAACP to challenge the separate but equal clause 0 The Court struck down grandfather clauses in 1915 0 The NAACP targeted segregation in education first 0 They started with law schools 0 There were two stages 0 Stage 1 completed Struggle to gain equal protection for Blacks 0 Stage 2 ongoing Struggle against aftermath of segregation and racism Missouri ex rel Gaines v Canada granted Blacks in M0 the same quality of law education that Whites had 0 This brought the Court39s attention to the inequality of the separate but equal clause Sweatt v Painter granted Blacks in TX the same quality of law education that Whites had 0 The Court acknowledged that the 14th Amendment banned unequal education Korematsu v United States 1944 created and explained the strict scrutiny test 0 A discriminatory law must be based on a compelling state interest 0 It designated race as a suspect category 0 The Supreme Court permitted laws that discriminated against Japanese Americans 0 It argued that laws against Japanese Americans were justified by national security concerns 0 It was a major blow for Japanese Americans 0 It aided AfricanAmericans however Chapter 6 The Struggle for Equal Rights Part 2 Keywords Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 0 Montgomery Bus Boycott De jure discrimination De facto discrimination Martin Luther King Jr John F Kennedy Lyndon B Johnson Civil Rights Bill 1964 Voting Rights Act 1965 TwentyFourth Amendment Malcolm X Housing Rights Act 1968 0 Busing 0 Executive Order 11246 Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978 Affirmative Action Ronald Reagan Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1954 integrated schools 0 The NAACP cited sociological evidence of Black inferiority in schoolchildren The Court decided that separate schools were inherently unequal This was a major blow to segregation 0 This was a major victory for the civil rights movement and AfricanAmericans Schools state officials and White parents hated the ruling Montgomery Bus Boycott widespread boycott against the public bus system in Montgomery AL 0 Rosa Parks was arrested after refusing to sit at the back of the bus 0 The back of the bus was reserved for Blacks 0 She refused to get up because she was exhausted 0 Local groups in the Black community boycotted the bus system 0 Blacks found alternatives to the buses 0 The boycott gained national attention 0 The Supreme Court struck down the Montgomery law 0 This helped integrate the Montgomery bus system 0 This helped launch the civil rights movement De jure discrimination discrimination arising or supported by the law 0 The civil rights movement faced this type of law 0 Example Jim Crow Laws Chinese Exclusion Acts Japanese internment laws 0 The Supreme Court39s strict scrutiny on race has ended most of these De facto discrimination discrimination based on tradition and habit 0 The civil rights movement faced this type of law too 0 This has been much harder to eliminate due to longlasting inequality 0 Example Stopandfrisk laws 0 Stopandfrisk applies to all citizens especially in highcrime impoverished areas 0 Highcrime impoverished areas tend to be majority Black Martin Luther King Jr founding member of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference 0 He was famous for his nonviolent approach 0 This inspired the civil rights movement in the North and South 0 Sitins peaceful protests etc 0 Nonviolence brought significant sociopolitical change in the 3960s Black interest groups convinced Kennedy to support the civil rights movement over southern Democrats Civil rights was Lyndon B Johnson39s top priority Congress and the Supreme Court cooperated on civil rights Civil Rights Bill 1964 allowed attorney general to file school desegregation lawsuits 0 It reinforced voting laws 0 It banned discrimination in public accommodations and employment 0 The attorney general could file school desegregation lawsuits 0 The president could also deny federal funding to segregated state and local programs 0 It created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC to reduce job discrimination Voting Rights Act 1965 banned discriminatory tests 0 Example literacy tests 0 Federal examiners would register voters throughout the South 0 The Warren Court supported this bill TwentyFourth Amendment banned poll taxes in federal elections 0 It was ratified in 1964 Black voter registration and school attendance soared by the end of the 1960s and early 3970s Blacks remained at the bottom of the economic hierarchy especially in the North 0 Poverty 0 Discriminatory employment practices 0 Segregated schools and housing Race riots spread through the US in mid1960s The civil rights movement took a more militant turn in the midtolate 1960s Malcolm X leader of the Black Muslims 0 He was assassinated in 1965 0 He advocated for a more militant approach 0 He wrote The Ballot or the Bullet Housing Rights Act 1968 banned redlining and other forms of discrimination in housing 0 Financiers could no longer deny services based on the ethnic makeup of a neighborhood 0 They could no longer deny mortgage loans based on race or ethnicity 0 Developers could no longer refuse to invest in neighborhoods based on ethnic makeup 0 Housing discrimination led to crime and homelessness in majorityBlack areas 0 The effects of housing discrimination are prevalent today The Black Panthers and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee demanded black power They began targeting segregation in the North They abandoned King39s nonviolence philosophy Busing Policy which transported students to schools across racial boundaries 0 White students were sent to majorityBlack urban schools 0 Black students were sent to majorityWhite suburban schools 0 It aimed to create a racial balance 0 It was very controversial for parents of both races 0 They expressed safety concerns 0 Busing failed to integrate schools in many urban schools 0 Many urban schools are informally segregated today Civil rights workers and policymakers were con icted on two things 0 Does equal protection prevent the states from sanctioning segregation Or 0 Does equal protection require the states to actively integrate schools Executive Order 11246 banned discrimination in firms working with the federal government 0 It was signed by Lyndon B Johnson 0 It also created af rmative action 0 Affirmative action substantive policy that creates opportunities favoring racial minorities 0 It was actively followed by companies and universities 0 It39s very controversial 0 Af rmative action represents procedural vs substantive guarantees Regents of the University of California v Bakke 1978 Quota systems can39t favor certain races 0 The Court upheld affirmative action 0 The Court asserted that schools must actively create a diverse student body 0 It maintained that admissions of ces can factor in the applicant39s race The Court became more conservative during the 1980s Ronald Reagan reversed some of the progress with civil rights 0 The Court argued the 14th Amendment didn39t protect workers from racial harassment 0 The burden of proof about employment discrimination lay on the worker 0 The constitutionality of affirmative action was uncertain Civil Rights Bill 1991 easier for workers to file complaints against discriminatory employers Race relations have been complicated by the growing diversity of the Black community 0 Many Blacks aren39t nativeborn AfricanAmericans 0 Some come from Haiti the West Indies Africa etc 0 Foreignborn African Americans are less aware of racism in the US 0 Nativeborn African Americans are suspicious of them 0 It may become harder to characterize the Black experience Chapter 10 The American Legal System and the Courts Part 1 Keywords 0 John Locke 0 Thomas Hobbes 0 Civillaw tradition 0 Commonlaw tradition 0 Stare decisis 0 Adversarial system 0 Inquisitorial system 0 Litigious 0 Civil suits 0 Substantive laws 0 Procedural laws 0 Criminal laws 0 Civil laws 0 Tort 0 Constitutional law 0 Statutory laws 0 Administrative laws 0 Executive orders 0 Jurisprudence 0 Federal Judiciary Act 1789 0 Federalist No 78 0 John Marshall 0 Judicial review 0 Marbury v Madison 1803 0 Jurisdiction original appellate 0 Appeal 0 Trial courts 0 Intermediate courts 0 State supreme courts Laws are products of the political process They39re created to gain valuable resources 0 Civil peace 0 Security 0 Particular moral order 0 Power 0 In uence 0 Goods 0 Entitlements 0 Precedent 0 Stare decisis Laws eliminate traffic chaos Laws enforce contracts Laws ban violence Laws prohibit rape murder and incest Laws may give large states more power in the presidential election Laws may allow the majority party to draw electoral districts Laws give tax breaks to homeowners Laws subsidize dairy farmers Different political systems produce different legal systems Formal legal structures may be unnecessary in small homogenized communities Laws in authoritarian nations serve the rulers and the government Laws in authoritarian nations change whenever the rulers see fit Religious states assume that laws are created by God Anyone who violates such laws is a sinner Laws in nonauthoritarian nations serve the citizens Laws have 5 important functions in democratic nations 0 Provide security according to Locke and Hobbes 0 Provide predictability citizens aware of what actions are illegal 0 Resolve con icts via neutral thirdparties known as courts 0 Re ect and enforce conformity to societal values ex theft is wrong 0 Distribute society39s benefits and rewards allocate the costs of those things Civillaw tradition Legal system based on detailed legal code 0 The legislature usually creates a civil law tradition 0 Some codes are very old date back to 1804 0 Court rulings don39t have much weight in determining the law 0 The judge plays an active role in guring out the truth 0 There39s more emphasis on the outcome than the procedures 0 Fair procedures are still important The federal legal system is based on common law as are the states except LA Commonlaw tradition Legal system based on court rulings 0 This began in Great Britain 0 Royal judges made decisions based on their own judgment 0 They based their decisions on past legal decisions 0 These past legal decisions were uniform through Britain 0 They relied on precedent or stare decisis let the decision stand 0 Court rulings have far more weight in determining the law 0 The judge doesn39t take an active role in guring out the truth Americans are more focused on their constituents than a complete body of laws American laws are somewhat haphazard American judges rely on their discretion precedent and stare decisis Adversarial system Trial procedures that resolve con ict through two opposing sides 0 Plaintiff vs defendant 0 The winner may be the side with more skilled attorneys 39 Judges have a passive role 0 They apply the law and keep proceedings fair 0 They aren39t the truth seeker 0 This is apart of the American legal system 0 It fits with the United States39 emphasis on individualism and cultural values 0 It gives tremendous in uence to lawyers Inquisitorial system Trial procedures that resolve con ict through an active judge 0 The judge questions witnesses 0 The judge seeks evidence 0 The prosecution and defense are relatively minor 0 Many European nations use this Germany France etc The US legal system is litigious 0 Americans sue each other litigate a lot Civil suits cases seeking compensation from noncriminal actions 0 Medical malpractice 0 Breach of contract 0 Americans file more civil suits than citizens of other nations Americans39 openness and democratic concern may explain the large number of civil suits Litigation is necessary in democracies that are committed to individual freedoms and citizens39 rights There aren39t other ways to provide compensation and security from risk Americans39 belief in total justice may also explain the large number of civil suits Americans believe someone else is responsible for something bad happening The government occasionally tries to limit lawsuits 0 Caps on medical malpractice awards 0 These efforts usually have political motives 0 They don39t amount to anything usually Substantive laws content or substance of a law defines what we can and can39t do 0 We can39t exceed the speed limit 0 We can39t kill someone 0 We can39t shoplift 0 We can39t rob a bank 0 We can39t launder money 0 We can39t commit treason Procedural laws establish how the law is used applied and enforced 0 These detail how legal proceedings should work 0 These detail how defendants will be treated 0 These detail what juries can be told during a trial Procedural due process procedural protections for those who must deal with the legal system Substantive and procedural laws sometimes con ict with each other Someone guilty of breaking a substantive law might be exonerated if procedural laws were violated 0 The police didn39t read the accused his or her rights 0 Police brutality took place 0 The police forced the accused to sign a document saying they39re guilty 0 The police didn39t get a search warrant before searching someone39s house Different judges interpret procedural laws differently Criminal laws ban actions that the government believes endanger the public 0 Burglary 0 Homicide includes accidental and orchestrated homicide 0 Rape 0 Sexual harassment 0 Money laundering 0 Treason 0 Creditdebit card fraud 0 ID theft 0 Stock market fraud 0 Bank fraud 0 Libel 0 Tax evasion 0 J aywalking 0 DUI DWI 0 Sale and use of illicit drugs Crime Violation of criminal law The government prosecutes such cases The penalty depends on the severity of the crime 0 fine 0 community service 0 prison time sentence can range from a few weeks to life 0 death Criminals must pay their debt to society since their actions harm society Civil laws regulate disputes between individual citizens Citizens bring lawsuits against each other for various reasons 0 Breach of contract 0 Reckless behavior causes physical harm or property damage 0 Failure to fulfill contract terms These are injuries to individuals Tort violation of civil law The government provides an outlet where individuals can peacefully settle their disputes 0 It has no stake in the outcome aside from peaceful con ict resolution Someone can face both criminal charges and a civil lawsuit 0 A drunk driving incident causes a serious accident that injures a victim 0 Criminal charges DUIDWI 0 Civil lawsuit for compensatory damages medical expenses pain and suffering property damage etc 0 Punitive damages fine for causing injury The injured party tends to sue the involved party with the most money 0 That would be the bar that sold the alcohol to begin with The burden of proof is easier to meet in civil trials 0 The government is seen as more dangerous to civil liberties than individuals are Constitutional law laws that establish the government39s powers and limitations 0 These detail the interrelationships of government institutions 0 They guarantee citizens39 basic rights 0 They refer to rulings made by lower courts and the Supreme Court 0 The lower courts and the Supreme Court interpret the Constitution 0 Court rulings have become an important part of American constitutional law 0 These laws evolve over time Statutory laws laws passed by state or federal legislatures 0 They re ect the elected bodies39 will to represent the people 0 They can address almost every behavior 0 Wearing seat belts 0 Paying taxes 0 Making Memorial Day a federal holiday 0 These can be struck down if they violate basic government principles or constitutional rights Legislatures often give some of their legislative power to bureaucratic agencies and departments Administrative laws laws established by the bureaucracy on Congress39s behalf These include thousands of regulations 0 Limit amount of coloring in food 0 Determine how airports conduct air traffic 0 What kinds of material can be included in toys 0 Limit concentration of heavy metals in drinking water 0 Limit concentration of greenhouse gases released from factories and vehicles 0 What deductions may be legal when determining income tax These laws aren39t made by people who39re directly accountable to Americans 0 Bureaucratic decision making aren39t democratic by nature Executive orders Laws made by the president 0 These aren39t made with Congress39s participation 0 They39re only effective during the issuing president39s administration 0 Truman signed an executive order that integrated the armed forces 0 Lyndon B Johnson signed an executive order that included affirmative action in business Jurisprudence law philosophy 0 American jurisprudence is heavily based on Britain39s 0 The separate court system is unique to the US 0 Large states preferred a strong court system and a strong national government 0 Small states wanted a weak court system and a weak national government Judges can39t face pay cuts while they39re in office Judges who demonstrate good behavior will remain in office The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in some cases 0 cases affecting ambassadors 0 cases affecting public ministers and consuls 0 cases affecting states The Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction in all other cases Federal Judiciary Act 1789 This detailed how the court system would be organized An independent judiciary was a unique idea when the United States was founded It was ideal to those who believed in checks and balances and separation of powers 0 An independent judiciary could check the president and Congress 0 Others thought it posed an unknown threat Federalist No 78 The judiciary is the least dangerous branch 0 Hamilton argued that it didn39t have the power of the sword executive power 0 He argued it didn39t have the power of the purse legislative budget power 0 It could only judge passively 0 He implied that he wanted a stronger Supreme Court 0 The Court was seen as a weak harmless branch 0 It wasn39t very prestigious Judicial review The Court can review the acts of other branches of government 0 These acts must be constitutional 0 The Court can strike them down if they violate it 0 Hamilton supported judicial review 0 He said that using the Constitution to check the other branches represents Americans39 will 0 John Marshall created judicial review 0 This made the Court much more powerful 0 Judicial review began in Marbury v Madison Marbury v Madison 1803 established judicial review 0 Adams made midnight judicial appointments 0 These lastminute appointments irritated Jefferson 0 He wanted to appoint his own candidates 0 He told his secretary of state James Madison to discard the appointment letters 0 These included Marbury39s letter 0 The Judiciary Act said the Court should decide if Marbury got his appointment 0 It was a nowin situation for the Supreme Court 0 Marshall focused on the act that gave the Court this authority 0 He said Congress couldn39t give the Court the authority to enforce Marbury39s appointment 0 This part of the Judiciary Act was unconstitutional 0 Judicial review was born Judicial review vastly expanded the Court39s power Justices have used judicial review sparingly on federal laws 0 It39s used more often to strike down state laws The court system under the Federal Judiciary Act was too simple to handle complex legal cases 0 There were more legal cases popping up too The federal government system of the US has two separate court systems 0 State courts 0 Federal courts Most legal actions in the US occur at the state level Jurisdiction courts39 authority to hear certain cases 0 There are special rules on which courts have jurisdiction over which cases 0 Most cases fall under the state courts39 jurisdiction 0 Cases can go to federal courts if they raise certain questions 0 The state and federal courts39 jurisdiction is dictated by the Constitution and statutory law 0 There39s still room for political maneuvering Four basic characteristics of a case determine which courts have jurisdiction over it 0 How the federal government Via treaties or federal statutes or Constitution is involved 0 Who the parties in the case are is a state one of the parties 0 Where the case arose 0 How serious the offense is Cases that start in one level of government usually end in that level of government 0 Cases starting at the federal level usually end at the federal level 0 Cases starting at the state level usually end at the state level It39s rare for a case to move to different government levels 0 A case in the highest state court is appealed to the Supreme Court 0 These cases challenge federal law Cases come to state and federal courts under original jurisdiction or appellate jurisdiction Original jurisdiction cases that come straight to one court 0 No other court hears this case before that one court Appellate jurisdiction cases that a court hears on appeal 0 One of the parties believes that the law wasn39t applied properly at a lower court 0 They request a higher court to hear it Most cases heard by the Supreme Court come to it on appeal 0 The Court39s original jurisdiction is limited to certain cases 0 Cases involving ambassadors 0 Cases involving public ministers 0 Cases involving a state 0 Up to two or three cases a year fit these descriptions All parties in US lawsuits are entitled to an appeal 0 90 of losers in federal cases accept their verdicts without appeal 0 Further appeals are at the higher court39s discretion The Supreme Court is the highest court of appeals in the US 0 Its appellate jurisdiction is discretionary The Court may refuse to hear a case for various reasons 0 The justices think the case is frivolous 0 The justices agree with the lower court39s ruling Just because the Court agrees to hear a case doesn39t mean it39ll overturn the lower court39s ruling 0 It overturns the lower court39s ruling about 70 of the time 0 The Court may hear a case to say that it agrees with a lower court39s ruling 0 This allows the Court to set a precedent for other courts to follow State courts are similar in function and appearance They generally fall into 3 tiers State Supreme Courts Court of last resort Final court of appeals at state level All 50 states have state supreme court names vary No juries No questions of fact can arise Panel of 59 justices meet to discuss case Make decision and issue opinion Ruling is final unless case involves federal question case appealed to federal court Intermediate Courts of Appeals Hear cases from often major trial courts Number of judges geographic setup subject matter jurisdiction etc vary from state to state First Layer Trial Court Major trial courts Courts for less serious offenses Cases are heard here for the first time Cases often end here too Called county and municipal courts at minor level Called superior or district courts at major level State court judges are appointed through various procedures 0 These procedures are detailed in each state constitution 0 Appointment by governor 0 Election by state legislature 0 Election by entire state population Judicial elections are controversial Supporters say they give Americans a voice 0 They hold judges accountable 0 They keep judges in line with public opinion Critics say judicial elections are a con ict of interest 0 They can be in uenced by donations from large organizations Business Roundtable etc 0 Few Americans cast educated votes in judicial elections 0 The threat of defeat in an election could in uence judges39 rulings Chapter 10 The American Legal System and the Courts Part 2 Keywords 0 District courts 0 District Attorney 0 US Courts of Appeals 0 US Supreme Court 0 Strict constructionism 0 Judicial interpretivism 0 Senatorial courtesy 0 writs of certiorari 0 forma pauperis 0 Rule of Four 0 Dissenting from the denial 0 Solicitor general 0 Amicus curiae briefs 0 Judicial activism 0 Judicial restraint 0 Opinion concurring or dissenting Federal courts fall into 3 tiers US Supreme Court Highest court in American legal system Panel of 9 justices Usually but not always consist of top legal minds in the country FBI does background check on nominees Seen as above politics by public Lifetime rule President much more involved in Supreme Court appointments Usually belong to president39s party US Courts of Appeals Hear cases appealed beyond district court Only have appellate jurisdiction Review ruling of district court No evidence presented No new witnesses called No jury impaneled Lawyers present written briefs summarizing their arguments Make oral arguments as well Facts of case assumed to be true Rulings made by rotating panel of 3 judges Arranged in 12 circuits Circuits include several district court territories and district court where case was originally heard 12th circuit includes only Washington DC 12th circuit hears appeals involving government agencies large number of cases 13th Federal Circuit Court hears cases over patents and copyrights District Courts Lowest level of federal courts 94 district courts Each state has 1 largest states each have 4 Appellate level Original jurisdiction over all federal cases Original jurisdiction over cases involving Constitution Original jurisdiction over cases involving Congress Original jurisdiction over other aspects of the federal government Tackles variety of issues EPA lawsuits etc Hear both criminal and civillaw cases Evidence is presented Witnesses called to testify Attorneys representing both sides question and crossexamine witnesses civillaw case Attorney represents government criminal law case 1 district attorney per district appointed by president with Senate39s consent Juries return the final verdict Strict constructionism calls for a literal interpretation of the Constitution 0 The Framers39 intentions are the most important 0 No one can change its meaning 0 Amendments are the only way to change the Constitution 0 This is often held by conservatives Judicial interpretivism calls for uid interpretation of the Constitution 0 The Constitution is a living document 0 The framers couldn39t predict every issue that could pop up 0 Justices should interpret it in response to social changes 0 Example implied right to privacy 0 This is often held by liberals The Court has swayed between strict constructionism and judicial interpretivism 0 Justices have become more conservative over time Supreme Court justices have been traditionally White male Christians 0 Carter started a trend towards a more diverse Supreme Court 0 Clinton continued this trend 0 Reagan the Bushes and Obama followed suit Justices Kagan and Sotomayor are female justices 0 Sotomayor is Latina No AsianAmerican justices have been appointed No NativeAmerican justices have been appointed Only 1 Hispanic and 2 AfricanAmericans have been appointed Many believe the Supreme Court should represent national demographics 0 Racial minority populations are expanding at higher rates The appointee39s ideology has become an important qualification 0 Presidents have become more aware of political in uence in the courts 0 This started with Nixon 0 They39ve tried to the use appointments to extend their political legacies 0 Nixon Reagan and HW Bush tried to limit liberal in uence in the courts 0 This liberal in uence started with the New Deal 0 Carter tried to limit conservative in uence in the courts 0 Clinton appointed moderate justices like Gerald Ford did W Bush39s judicial positions were 562 Republican by the end of his term 0 Obama has tried to appoint liberal justices 0 The Court is still strongly conservative 0 The president39s nominees face a battle in the Senate 0 Senate majority leader Harry Reid invoked a nuclear option 0 The nuclear option eliminated the filibuster on nonSupreme Court federal nominees Senatorial courtesy grants senior senators of the president39s party great power over federal judicial appointments in their home states 0 Bush and the Senate Republicans weakened this practice somewhat 0 Senate Republicans tried to restore it once Obama became president Senate Judiciary Committee plays largest role in confirming presidential appointments 0 They hold hearings 0 They invite the nominee their colleagues and concerned interest groups to testify These hearings sometimes become political battlefields 0 The Senate majority party isn39t the president39s party 0 Senate minority party may use filibusters to in uence the confirmation The Supreme Court doesn39t hear every case that comes to it 0 It receives about 8000 petitions per year 0 It hears about 80 or 90 of them 0 Its decision to hear them is political in nature Writs of certiorari losing party in lower court case writes down why the Court should hear the case 0 These come with a 300 filing fee 0 Someone who can39t afford the filing fee petition the Court in forma pauperis 0 F orma pauperis exempts them from the fee and strict writing rules 0 The Supreme Court can grant or deny writs of certiorari The case must have harmed the losing party in some way 0 No question about an abstract principle 0 No political question justices may or may not agree on this The case must be in the Court39s jurisdiction Law clerks are usually recent law school graduates 0 They39ve usually served as clerks to judges in lower courts 0 They must read all the petitions 0 They summarize them in a fivepage memo 0 Their summaries must include a recommendation on whether to hear the case or not Rule of Four 4 justices must agree to grant a writ of certiorari before hearing a case 0 This isn39t a written rule Justices deny writs of certiorari for various reasons 0 The case isn39t important enough 0 The case isn39t special enough Dissenting from the denial efforts to persuade other justices to hear case 0 These justices strongly believe that the case is important 0 This practice has become more common recently lt5 of cases appealed to the Supreme Court survive the screening process Solicitor General Justice Department officer 0 This is the federal government39s lawyer 0 They argue the government39s cases before the Supreme Court 7080 of cases appealed by the federal government survive the screening process 0 The justices trust that the solicitor general can weed out frivolous lawsuits 0 The federal government39s interests hold a high stature 0 The solicitor general is highly experienced Amicus curiae briefs friend of the court documents 0 These are filed by interested parties 0 They encourage the Court to grant or deny certiorari 0 They urge the Court to decide a case in some way 0 These appear to improve the likelihood that the Court will hear a case 0 Economic interest groups file these more often than other kinds of groups 0 Their interests most often in uence justices to grant certiorari Judicial activism courts should be active lawmaking policymaking bodies 0 Judicial activism supporters agree with overturning precedents 0 They agree with judicial review 0 They agree that the courts should help shape government policy 0 The Court has frequently followed this concept in its history civil rights etc Judicial restraint courts should stick to past rulings 0 Judicial restraint supporters believe strongly in stare decisis 0 They don39t think that courts should be part of the lawmaking process 0 Active lawmaking by the Court is unconstitutional These viewpoints usually line up with interpretivism and constructionism respectively Neither one is necessarily liberal or conservative The Court isn39t separate from politics 0 Pressure from interest groups 0 Ideological leanings toward the president 0 Public opinion 0 J ustices39 relationships with each other Opinion written part of decision that details the Court39s majority judgment 0 This is the case39s legacy 0 It39s very important for how the nation will understand the Court39s ruling 0 They39re either concurring or dissenting Concurring opinions Documents written by justices who agree with the ruling 0 They may agree for different or additional reasons for the ruling Dissenting opinions Documents written by justices who disagree with the ruling Chapter 6 The Struggle for Equal Rights Part 3 Keywords 0 Bureau of Indian Affairs 0 frybread federalism 0 National Congress of American Indians NCAI 0 American Indian Movement AIM 0 Englishonly movement 0 illegal immigration undocumented immigration 0 United Farm Workers 0 Mexican American Legal Defense Fund MALDEF 0 League of United Latin American Citizens LULAC 0 Communities Organized for Public Service COPS 0 Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 0 National Origin Act 1925 0 Naturalization Act 1790 0 1848 Seneca Falls NY convention 0 Married Women39s Property Act 1848 0 National Woman Suffrage Association 0 American Woman Suffrage Association 0 Susan B Anthony Amendment 19th Amendment 0 National American Woman Suffrage Association NAWSA 0 Equal Rights Amendment ERA 0 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 0 National Organization for Women NOW 0 Title IX 1972 0 Revenue Act 1972 0 Lilly Ledbetter Act 2009 0 Civil Rights Act 1991 0 Glass Ceiling Commission 0 Sexual harassment 0 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC 0 Bowers v Hardwick 1986 0 Lawrence v Texas 2003 0 Defense of Marriage Act DOMA 0 Don39t ask don39t tell DADT 0 Employment NonDiscrimination Act ENDA 0 Christian Right 0 Obergefell v Hodges 2015 0 Age Discrimination Act 1967 0 AARP 0 Americans with Disabilities Act ADA Native Americans have a complicated status in American politics 0 Native American tribes saw themselves as sovereign nations 0 The US government didn39t consistently see them that way 0 Chief Justice Marshall saw them as domestic dependent nations 0 The commerce clause gave Congress guardianship over Indian affairs 0 Native American tribes were often displaced 0 Most were liVing in Western territories by the mid1800s 0 These lands didn39t have any spiritual meaning to them 0 Their hunting and farming traditions were ineffective in these areas 0 They became dependent on federal assistance Bureau of Indian Affairs government agency 0 It was formed in 1824 0 It was part of the War Department later moved to Interior Department 0 It institutionalized the guardianship over Native American tribes 0 A 1977 federal reView commission concluded that it failed to safeguard Indians39 rights One major issue was the government39s role in Indian affairs Another major issue was how much selfgovernment the Indians were allowed Modern congressional policy toward Native Americans has varied 0 Congress has tried to assimilate them into the dominant Europeanbased culture 0 Congress has tried to help them develop economic independence and selfgovernment These two efforts have caused serious socioeconomic problems for Native Americans 0 These have stripped Native American tribes of their cultures and native lands 0 Federal funding cuts have weakened them economically 0 Some communities are suffering from poverty alcoholism and unemployment 0 Congress has denied many of the rights promised in their treaties 0 This has made it easier to exploit abundant natural resources in the West Native Americans have fought for ciVil rights They39ve fought for the fulfillment of treaties and promises from Congress They39ve fought for the preservation of their cultures They39ve fought for the rights to their native lands 0 Their cultures emphasized harmony with the land 0 Battles over mining rights insulted their cultures They clashed with the government to preserve tribal traditions They depended on the government to stave off poverty frybread federalism describes Native Americans39 citizenship status 0 American Indians are citizens of tribes 0 They39re also US citizens 0 Their rights come from both forms of citizenship American Indians didn39t have a clear strategy to fight for their rights Politics didn39t provide any remedies Indian reservations were separate entities under the federal government Congress didn39t support them either 0 Economic in uences in Congress were eager to obtain Indians39 lands The Court allowed timber and roads to go through national forests Native Americans used these forests for religious reasons Two Native American counselors were dismissed for using peyote They were legally denied unemployment benefits Native Americans took matters into their own hands They formed the National Congress of American Indians NCAI in 1944 They formed the American Indian Movement AIM in 1968 AIM took over Alcatraz Island in San Francisco Bay in 1969 They occupied a reservation at Wounded Knee in 1973 AIM drew attention to Native Americans39 plight They drew attention to divisions within the Native American community Indians disagreed on selfrule treaty enforcement and the federal government39s role Native Americans haven39t made much progress in regaining their lands and cultures 0 They earn the lowest income level out of all races in the US 0 They face poor living conditions 0 Their high school graduation rates are very low compared the national average 0 Some reservations have a much lower life expectancy than the national average 0 Some reservations suffer from high unemployment Two court rulings and the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act 1988 have improved their fortunes Some states allow gambling Some states hold a state lottery 0 These permit reservations to engage in all sorts of gambling 0 Only the Bureau of Indian Affairs regulates this 0 Some reservations have been extremely successful in the casino business 0 Native American gaming revenue represents 42 of national casino revenues 0 Many tribes and individuals don39t benefit from this money Casino gambling is controversial in the Native American community 0 Some believe it39s essential to improving their financial condition 0 Others believe it39s a desecration to Native American spirituality Some Native American tribes donate heavily to political campaigns in CA 0 This expands their political clout 0 They39re criticized for not donating this money to poor reservations A few Native Americans have been elected to the House 0 Republicans Markwayne Mullin and Tom Cole 0 Democrat Elizabeth Warren possibly Hispanic Americans are a diverse group 0 Guatemalan 0 Salvadoran 0 Peruvian 0 Ecuadoran Hispanic Americans have 3 problems 0 Divisions Within the community 0 Language barriers 0 Public reaction to illegal immigration or undocumented immigration from Mexico Hispanics are the largest ethnic minority 0 They make up gt16 of the population 0 The population growth will draw more attention to Hispanic issues The current Hispanic population is mainly Mexican 0 They39re called Chicanas or Chicanos 0 Mexican Americans are largely concentrated in CA TX AZ NM Puerto Ricans are largely concentrated in the North NY NJ etc Cubans are largely concentrated in FL 0 They39re more likely to have been political refugees 0 They escaped Fidel Castro39s communist government 0 Most of the Cubans who left were educated professionals 0 They largely regained their high socioeconomic status in the US 0 They hold more professional and managerial jobs 0 Their living standards are much higher overall These differences have fragmented and weakened the Hispanic community 0 They have different interests The US has one of the largest Spanishspeaking populations on Earth 0 This is due to a constant stream of immigrants 0 Many White Anglos feel threatened 0 They see this as Spanish encroachment Englishonly movement efforts to make English the official language of the US 0 They prevent foreign languages from appearing on ballots 0 They prevent foreign languages from appearing in formal documents 0 This movement is about maintaining a dominant national and cultural identity There39s been a national backlash against illegal immigrants from Mexico 0 The police are very suspicious of them 0 NonHispanic Americans resent them for various reasons 0 Using government resources 0 Taking American jobs 0 Putting financial strain on the national infrastructure and so on The immigration issue makes it harder for Hispanic Americans to be accepted into the US Hispanics39 political clout has been increasing 0 Cesar Chavez founded the United Farm Workers in the 1960s 0 This garnered national attention to poor working conditions for farm workers 0 They founded the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund MALDEF 0 They founded the League of United Latin American Citizens LULAC 0 These groups lobby to end racial discrimination against Hispanics Alberto Gonzalez became the first Latino attorney general Sonia Sotomayor became the first Latina US Supreme Court justice Voter turnout for Hispanics has been rising 0 Their political clout is especially strong in areas where they have high socioeconomic status Communities Organized for Public Service COPS managed to help improve Hispanic voting rates Asian Americans have enjoyed high levels of economic and educational success They still face racism and public backlash against immigration Asian Americans are a diverse group 0 Chinese 0 Japanese 0 Korean 0 Filipino 0 Vietnamese 0 Indian 0 Laotian 0 Cambodian They vary by when they immigrated to the US Chinese Exclusion Act 1882 banned immigration from China 0 Congress repealed this in 1943 National Origin Act 1925 banned immigration from Japan Asians and Pacific Islanders are the fastestgrowing immigrant groups in the US 0 Many are from Cambodia Laos and Vietnam Asian Americans have had trouble assimilating into the larger EuroAmerican population Naturalization Act 1790 only White immigrants could become naturalized citizens 0 It was effective until 1952 0 Asians were counted as aliens ineligible for citizenship 0 This disenfranchised Asian Americans 0 They couldn39t rent or own property 0 American citizens who married Asians lost their citizenship 0 Exceptions Filipino soldiers who served the US army in WWII The US sent Japanese citizens to detention camps 0 This was a response to the Pearl Harbor attack 0 They believed that Japanese Americans were a threat to national security 0 Young Japanese men had to sign loyalty oaths to the US to serve in the military 0 The government paid 125 billion as reparation to survivors in 1988 Asian immigrants were forced out of wage labor by angry White workers 0 They started businesses and restaurants 0 They share a cultural emphasis on hard work and high achievement 0 Many immigrants were skilled workers in their native countries 0 They passed these values on their children 0 Asian Americans have the highest high school and college graduation rates of all ethnic groups 0 Their academic success has irritated resentful Whites 0 Their academic success has placed them in an unusual spot for affirmative action 0 They39re pitted against Black and Hispanic students in admissions to schools 0 This makes racist attitudes harder to overcome AsianAmerican voter registration and turnout rates are the lowest in the nation 0 This may have been caused by denying citizenship rights to Asian Americans 0 American politics are unfamiliar to them 0 Asian Americans are more interested in economic success than political participation 1848 Seneca Falls NY convention where the women39s rights movement began 0 We hold these truths to be selfevident that all men and women are created equal 0 They proposed a resolution to demand the right to vote for women 0 Not everyone at the convention supported women39s right to vote 0 Everyone supported women39s right to own property 0 Everyone supported women39s right to child custody after divorce 0 Everyone supported women39s right to have access to higher education 0 The women39s right movement grew after this convention Married Women39s Property Act 1848 supported married women39s right to property The women39s right movement won victories in NY Not all American women had these rights Progress was slow The abolitionist and women39s rights movements cooperated initially 0 Women39s rights advocates assumed that the 14th Amendment would also include women 0 This didn39t happen 0 This split both movements apart The women39s right movement split in half in 1869 0 They were divided on strategy and philosophy 0 The National Woman Suffrage Association took a broader view on women39s rights 0 They wanted to end job discrimination 0 They wanted to reform labor conditions and divorce law 0 It favored a federal suffrage amendment 0 The American Woman Suffrage Association tried to change state electoral laws 0 This strategy helped pass the Susan B Anthony 19th Amendment in 1920 WY was the first state to grant suffrage to women The National and American Woman Suffrage Associations merged in 1890 0 They became the National American Woman Suffrage Assocation NAWSA The women39s rights movement was facing some problems 0 External opposition 0 Internal divisions The women39s rights movement appeared to have political power 0 This convinced OH IN RI NE AR etc to grant women voting rights NAWSA threatened to defeat any legislator who opposed the Susan B Anthony Amendment 0 The amendment passed in the House 0 It didn39t pass in the Senate 0 NAWSA targeted 4 senators 0 2 of them narrowly held onto their seats 0 9 more seats allowed women to vote in presidential elections The Susan B Anthony Amendment was reintroduced into Congress 0 President Wilson supported the Susan B Anthony Amendment 0 They passed by a 23rds majority in both houses 0 TN became the 36th state to ratify the 19th Amendment 0 34ths of state legislatures had ratified the 19th Amendment 0 Women had the nationwide right to vote The opposition to women39s suffrage came from various sources 0 White male Southerners feared women would help enforce the Civil War Amendments 0 Brewing and liquor interests feared women would force temperance on the nation 0 Industrial and business interests feared women would pass labor reform laws 0 Upperclass women argued that men already represented women39s interests The results of women39s suffrage were disappointing to supporters 0 Blacks and immigrants faced widespread discrimination 0 This disenfranchised both sexes in those cases 0 Political parties banned women from joining 0 Most women didn39t have the money political networks or experience to get involved 0 Societal attitudes opposed women39s political participation 0 Politically active women were seen as unfeminine Equal Rights Amendment ERA this would39ve banned gender discrimination 0 Americans of both sexes didn39t want to change the status quo 0 They feared giving more power to the federal government 0 Women39s rights advocates feared that it would void laws that sought to protect women 0 Ex minimum wages for women limits on working hours for women 0 Opponents feared an ERA would require military drafts for women 0 Some feared the risk of radical change 0 The ERA got associated with abortion and Roe v Wade ie rejection of motherhood 0 There was an attempt to reintroduce it in the early 1970s 0 It fell short of the 34ths requirement 0 It died despite a deadline extension from 1979 to 1982 Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 1964 prohibited racial discrimination in the workplace 0 This was amended to include gender discrimination 0 The gender discrimination amendment was supposed to keep it from passing 0 The bill passed instead National Organization for Women NOW promotes women39s rights 0 It started in 1967 0 It supported the ERA Title IX 1972 banned sexual discrimination in schools receiving federal funding 0 This was one of the Education Amendments 0 Schools had to give boys and girls equal opportunities 0 They had to support girl39s sports Revenue Act 1972 provided tax credits for child care Most legal barriers to women39s equality have been removed The Supreme Court doesn39t treat gender as suspect due to the ERA39s failure to pass Laws that discriminate on gender are subject to the intermediate standard of review Women earn 77 cents for every dollar that men earn The National Committee on Pay Equity estimates that this pay gap costs women gt500000 Lilly Ledbetter Act 2009 extends the time frame for lawsuits over discrimination Paycheck Fairness Act bans discrimination and retaliation against workers who sue their employer 0 This is a controversial law 0 Democrats say women need more workplace protections 0 Republicans say women earn less for nondiscriminatory reasons children etc Women are very underrepresented at top levels of power 0 Ex Upper levels of corporate management 0 Ex Upper levels of academic administration There are many possible reasons 0 Childbearing 0 Actual difference in hiring and salary patterns for women 0 Men39s in exibility when it comes to motherhood and corporate responsibilities Civil Rights Act 1991 created Glass Ceiling Commission 0 The commission was tasked with studying this phenomenon 0 Business is hurting itself by denying leadership opportunities to so many talented women Affirmative action has been used to ensure that women are hired 0 The Supreme Court has upheld this practice Sexual harassment unwelcome sexual speech or behavior that creates a hostile workplace 0 This runs rampant in the military 0 This plagues private companies as well Boeing Merril Lynch etc Equal Employment Opportunity Commission EEOC investigates workplace discrimination 0 Pregnant women filed numerous complaints of job discrimination 0 Promotion denials 0 Unfair hiring and firing practices 0 This outpaced sexual harassment claims 0 Half reported that their bosses negatively reacted to their pregnancies Women face political discrimination 0 More women are elected to office today than at any other time history 0 They39re still the most underrepresented group in Congress and state legislatures There are any reasons for this 0 Women aren39t as likely to have enough money to run a successful campaign 0 Women aren39t as likely to be interested in running for offices Bowers v Hardwick 1986 upheld a GA statute banning sodomy 0 Discrimination based on sexual orientation passed the minimum rationality test 0 It was a reasonable use of state power 0 What consenting adults to is private outside the government39s realm of authority The South Boston Allied War Veterans Council weren39t required to allow gay marches The IrishAmerican Gay Lesbian Bisexual Group of Boston didn39t show their sexual orientation banner on St Patrick39s Day The Court struck down a CO amendment in 1996 0 This amendment prevented gays from suing over housing and employment discrimination 0 Gay rights was treated as a civil rights issue Lawrence v Texas 2003 overturned Bowers ruling 0 This struck down TX state sodomy laws 0 They violated the implied right to privacy 0 States couldn39t regulate homosexuals39 behavior MA is the first state to legalize gay marriage 0 It ruled that marriage is a civil right 0 It struck down an MA law that banned gay marriage 0 The law violated the equal protection and due process laws in the MA constitution 0 This ruling was very controversial Rightwingers argued that the MA ruling was judicial activism 0 The court was overstepping its authority 0 State legislatures should decide over marriage rights 0 Opponents also noted that most Americans didn39t want gay marriage Defense of Marriage Act DOMA states don39t need to recognize gay marriages in other states 0 Bush supported a proposed amendment 0 It would define marriage as a civil union between a man and a woman 0 The Supreme Court struck down DOMA in 2013 0 This led to gay marriage bans being lifted in other states DADT policy don39t ask don39t tell 0 Clinton issued an executive order 0 This executive order allowed gays to join the armed forces 0 This created a widespread public backlash 0 The Christian Right and the military were especially outraged 0 Clinton created don39t ask don39t tell to appease them 0 Military personnel can39t disclose their sexual orientation under DADT 0 They39d be discharged if they did 0 The Supreme Court struck down DADT in 2011 Employment NonDiscrimination Act ENDA this would39ve banned discrimination against gays in the workplace 0 This would39ve banned discrimination in hiring firing pay and promotion decisions 0 It has failed to pass both chambers 0 Obama announced last year he was preparing an executive order 0 This will ban federal contractors and subcontractors from discriminating against LGBT workers Christian Right has been a fierce opponent to LGBT rights 0 They see the LGBT lifestyle as unnatural and sinful 0 They39re fearful of LGBT Americans being given special privileges Tolerance of gays has been increasing Obergefell v Hodges 2015 requires states to recognize gay marriage 0 This is a landmark victory for the LGBT movement 0 It is highly controversial The Supreme Court ruled that age isn39t suspect in 1976 0 States can treat younger and older Americans differently 0 Young Americans aren39t given the full array of citizenship rights e g voting rights 0 They39re subject to curfews 0 They39re not subject to the same criminal punishments as adults e g death sentence Older Americans face discrimination in employment 0 Compulsory retirement at a certain age regardless of abilities or health 0 The Court usually upholds these requirements Age Discrimination Act 1967 banned discrimination against Americans up to 70 years of age 0 Americans are entitled to work benefits up to age 70 0 An employer must show that age is relevant to the job 0 It was amended in 1978 to ban mandatory retirement before age 70 0 It was amended in 1986 to ban all mandatory retirement policies except for special cases Older Americans are very wellorganized in politics AARP powerful interest group with gt30 million members 0 They pressure government to enforce policies that benefit older Americans 0 They garnered national attention in mid1990s 0 This was during debates over cutting government services 0 They helped preserve Social Security and Medicare Americans with Disabilities Act ADA protects rights of disabled Americans 0 This includes mentally and physically disabled Americans 0 AIDS patients 0 Recovering drug and alcohol addicts 0 Heart disease patients 0 Diabetics 0 It was modeled on civil rights laws that protects racial and gender groups 0 It provides guidelines for access to various facilities 0 Buildings 0 Mass transit 0 Public facilities 0 Communication systems 0 It protects them against employment discrimination It was very controversial It required costly changes to physical accommodations Advocates say these costs will be offset by the increased sales from disabled customers 0 These costs will also be offset by higher productivity from disabled workers
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'