Chapter 5 Part 2 and Chapter 6 Part 1
Chapter 5 Part 2 and Chapter 6 Part 1 pol101
Popular in American Government
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Political Science
This 24 page Class Notes was uploaded by Belinda Tagoe on Friday October 2, 2015. The Class Notes belongs to pol101 at Mercer University taught by Dr. Chris Grant in Summer 2015. Since its upload, it has received 22 views. For similar materials see American Government in Political Science at Mercer University.
Reviews for Chapter 5 Part 2 and Chapter 6 Part 1
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
Date Created: 10/02/15
Chapter 5 Fundamental American Liberties 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 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 someone39s 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 lters 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 les 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 The Second Amendment only deals with gun Gun control is a slippery slope Regulating assault ownership by militia members It39s outdated now 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 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 0 Electrocution 0 Lethal injection 0 These are relatively new These are considered to be more merciful than older methods 0 Hanging 0 Firing squad 0 Gas chamber 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 ruled in 1976 that the death penalty was legal The justices were very divided over the issue McClesky v Kemp 1987 The Court argued that 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 KY39s lethal injection practice is legal 0 Other states continued applying lethal injection in response Public support for the death penalty has been waning recently 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 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 There39s 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 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 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 0 Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 0 Montgomery Bus Boycott 0 Martin Luther King Jr 0 John F Kennedy 0 Lyndon B Johnson 0 Civil Rights Bill 1964 0 Voting Rights Act 1965 0 TwentyFourth Amendment 0 Malcolm X 0 Housing Rights Act 1968 Busing Executive Order 11246 Regents of the University of California v Bakke Affirmative Action Ronald Reagan Civil rights Citizenship rights protected by the government 13th Amendment 14th Amendment 15th Amendment 19th Amendment 26th Amendment 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 0 They39re too uncivilized to enjoy their rights 0 Outsiders don39t deserve the full rights of their citizenship 0 Denying their rights denies them power 0 They remain subordinate to the dominant group Racism institutionalized power inequalities that are based on racial differences 0 It has been very in uential in American culture 0 It has been central to American politics Northwest Ordinance of 1787 banned slavery in the northwestern territories 0 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 atrial 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 A discriminatory law must be based on a compelling state interest It designated race as a suspect category The Supreme Court permitted laws that discriminated against Japanese Americans It argued that laws against Japanese Americans were justified by national security concerns 0 It was a major blow for Japanese Americans It aided AfricanAmericans however Brown v Board of Education of Topeka 1950 integrated schools The NAACP cited sociological evidence of Black inferiority in schoolchildren The Court decided that separate schools were inherently unequal 0 This was a major blow to segregation 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 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 signi cant 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 maintained affirmative action 0 The Court asserted that schools must actively create a diverse student body 0 It maintained that admissions offices 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 Many Blacks aren39t nativeborn AfricanAmericans Some come from Haiti the West Indies Africa etc Foreignborn African Americans are less aware of racism in the US Nativeborn African Americans are suspicious of them It may become harder to characterize the Black experience