American politics and government
This presentation is the property of its rightful owner.
Sponsored Links
1 / 66

American Politics and Government PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 98 Views
  • Uploaded on
  • Presentation posted in: General

American Politics and Government. Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. Quick Review. Statute Law Common Law Case Law Precedent Law. Definitional Clarification. Civil Liberties What the government cannot do Protection of the citizens from the government Civil Rights

Download Presentation

American Politics and Government

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


American politics and government

American Politicsand Government

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties


Quick review

Quick Review

  • Statute Law

  • Common Law

    • Case Law

    • Precedent Law


Definitional clarification

Definitional Clarification

  • Civil Liberties

    • What the government cannot do

    • Protection of the citizens from the government

  • Civil Rights

    • What the government must do

    • Protection of the citizens from each other


Civil liberties

Civil Liberties

  • What government cannot do

  • Bill of Rights

  • Amendment XIV


Bill of rights

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment I:

    • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Bill of rights1

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment II:

    • A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


Bill of rights2

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment III:

    • No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.


Bill of rights3

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment IIII:

    • The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Bill of rights4

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment V:

    • No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; …


Bill of rights5

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment V:

    • … nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


Bill of rights6

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment VI:

    • In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; …


Bill of rights7

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment VI:

    • … to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.


Bill of rights8

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment VII:

    • In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.


Bill of rights9

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment VIII:

    • Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Bill of rights10

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment VIIII:

    • The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


Bill of rights11

Bill of Rights

  • Amendment X:

    • The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


Amendment xiiii 1

Amendment XIIII (§1):

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Amendment xiiii 2

Amendment XIIII (§2):

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. …


Amendment xiiii 21

Amendment XIIII (§2):

…But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,* and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.


Amendment xiiii 3

Amendment XIIII (§3):

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.


Amendment xiiii 4

Amendment XIIII (§4):

The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.


Amendment xiiii 5

Amendment XIIII (§5):

The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.


Due process clause

Due Process Clause

  • "…nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

  • This leads to the Incorporation Doctrine of the US Supreme Court.

    • That is: The Bill of Rights applies to the Several States, not just to the Federal Government.


Criminal rights court cases

Criminal Rights Court Cases

Six Momentous USSC Cases Dealing with the Rights of the Accuses


Momentous case

Momentous Case:

Olmstead v. United States

277 U.S. 438 (1928)


Olmstead v us 1928

Olmstead v. US, 1928

  • Background:

    • Roy Olmstead was a suspected bootlegger. Without judicial approval, federal agents installed wiretaps in the basement of Olmstead's building (where he maintained an office) and in the streets near his home. Olmstead was convicted with evidence obtained from the wiretaps.


Olmstead v us 19281

Olmstead v. US, 1928

  • Question:

    • Did the use of evidence disclosed in wiretapped private telephone conversations, violate the recorded party's Fourth and Fifth Amendments?


Olmstead v us 19282

Olmstead v. US, 1928

  • Findings:

    • Fourth Amendment: mere wiretapping does not constitute a search and seizure under the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. These terms refer to an actual physical examination of one's person, papers, tangible material effects, or home – not their intangible conversations.

    • Fifth Amendment: the defendants were not forced to conduct those conversations. Instead, the conversations were voluntarily made between the parties and their associates.


Olmstead v us 19283

Olmstead v. US, 1928

  • Results:

    • This case was reversed by Katz v. US, 389 U.S. 347 (1967):

      • Physical intrusion into the area he occupied was no longer necessary to bring the Fourth Amendment into play.

      • "The Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."


Momentous case1

Momentous Case:

Mapp v. Ohio

367 U.S. 643 (1961)


Mapp v ohio 1961

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

  • Background:

    • Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression.


Mapp v ohio 19611

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

  • Questions:

    • Were the confiscated materials protected by the First Amendment?

    • May evidence obtained through a search in violation of the Fourth Amendment be admitted in a state criminal proceeding?


Mapp v ohio 19612

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

  • Findings:

    • The Court brushed aside the First Amendment issue and declared that "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is, by [the Fourth Amendment], inadmissible in a state court."


Mapp v ohio 19613

Mapp v. Ohio, 1961

  • Results:

    • It placed the requirement of excluding illegally obtained evidence from court at all levels of the government.

    • That is, evidence gotten unconstitutionally could no longer be used in trials.


Momentous case2

Momentous Case:

Gideon v. Wainwright

372 U.S. 335 (1963)


Gideon v wainwright 1963

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

  • Background:

    • Gideon was charged in a Florida state court with a felony for breaking and entering. He lacked funds and was unable to hire a lawyer to prepare his defense. When he requested the court to appoint an attorney for him, the court refused, stating that it was only obligated to appoint counsel to indigent defendants in capital cases. Gideon defended himself in the trial; he was convicted by a jury and the court sentenced him to five years in a state prison.


Gideon v wainwright 19631

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

  • Question:

    • Did the state court's failure to appoint counsel for Gideon violate his right to a fair trial and due process of law as protected by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments?


Gideon v wainwright 19632

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

  • Findings (unanimous opinion):

    • Gideon had a right to be represented by a court-appointed attorney. In this case the Court found that the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of counsel was a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial, which should be made applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause.

    • It was called an "obvious truth" that a fair trial for a poor defendant could not be guaranteed without the assistance of counsel: "Lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries."


Gideon v wainwright 19633

Gideon v. Wainwright, 1963

  • Results:

    • States had to provide legal counsel for anyone who asked for it.


Momentous case3

Momentous Case:

Miranda v. Arizona

384 U.S. 436 (1966)


Miranda v arizona 1966

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

  • Background:

    • In 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested for robbery. When questioned by police, he also confessed to kidnapping, and rape. At trial, prosecutors offered only his confession as evidence and he was convicted.


Miranda v arizona 19661

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

  • Question:

    • Does the police practice of interrogating individuals without notifying them of their right to counsel and their protection against self-incrimination violate the Fifth Amendment?


Miranda v arizona 19662

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

  • Findings:

    • The Court held that prosecutors could not use statements stemming from custodial interrogation of defendants unless they demonstrated the use of procedural safeguards "effective to secure the privilege against self-incrimination."

    • The Court specifically outlined the necessary aspects of police warnings to suspects, including warnings of the right to remain silent and the right to have counsel present during interrogations.


Miranda v arizona 19663

Miranda v. Arizona, 1966

  • Results:

    • You have the right to remain silent. If you give up that right, anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney and to have an attorney present during questioning. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you at no cost. During any questioning, you may decide at any time to exercise these rights, not answer any questions, or make any statements.


Momentous case4

Momentous Case:

Furman v. Georgia

408 U.S. 238 (1972)


Furman v georgia 1972

Furman v. Georgia, 1972

  • Background:

    • Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him. He attempted to flee, and in doing so tripped and fell. The gun that he was carrying went off and killed a resident of the home. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death.


Furman v georgia 19721

Furman v. Georgia, 1972

  • Question:

    • Does the imposition and carrying out of the death penalty in these cases constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments?


Furman v georgia 19722

Furman v. Georgia, 1972

  • Findings (unanimous):

    • Yes. The Court's one-page per curiam opinion held that the imposition of the death penalty in these cases constituted cruel and unusual punishment and violated the Constitution.


Furman v georgia 19723

Furman v. Georgia, 1972

  • Results:

    • In over two hundred pages of concurrence and dissents, the justices articulated their views on this controversial subject.

    • Only Justices Brennan and Marshall believed the death penalty to be unconstitutional in all instances. Other concurrences focused on the arbitrary nature with which death sentences have been imposed, often indicating a racial bias against black defendants.


Momentous case5

Momentous Case:

New Jersey v. T.L.O.

469 U.S. 325 (1985)


New jersey v t l o 1985

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

  • Background:

    • A New Jersey high school freshman was caught smoking in a bathroom with someone else.

    • A teacher took them to the assistant principal of the school, who questioned them. The other person confessed to smoking. T.L.O., however, denied it. The AP searched TLO's purse and found cigarettes, marijuana, a pipe, rolling paper, plastic bags, letters confirming her actions as a drug dealer and a list of people who owed the student money.


New jersey v t l o 19851

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

  • Question:

    • Did the search violate T.L.O.'s her Fourth Amendment rights?


New jersey v t l o 19852

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

  • Findings:

    • The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the search and seizure by school officials without a warrant was constitutional, as long as the search is deemed reasonable.


New jersey v t l o 19853

New Jersey v. T.L.O., 1985

  • Results:

    • The obvious result that school officials can search a student's locker as long as they have a reasonable justification.

    • The case is also important because of the Courts statement that States have a duty to provide a safe school environment.


Right to privacy court cases

Right to Privacy Court Cases

Two Momentous USSC Cases Dealing with the Right to Privacy


Momentous case6

Momentous Case:

Griswold v. Connecticut

381 U.S. 479 (1965)


Griswold v ct 1965

Griswold v. CT, 1965

  • Background:

    • Griswold was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the Medical Director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counselling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.


Griswold v ct 19651

Griswold v. CT, 1965

  • Question:

    • Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?


Griswold v ct 19652

Griswold v. CT, 1965

  • Finding:

    • Yes.

    • Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, demonstrate an underlying constitutional right – the right to privacy in marital relations.


Griswold v ct 19653

Griswold v. CT, 1965

  • Result:

    • The right to privacy in marital relations is explicitly stated as a point of law.


Momentous case7

Momentous Case:

Roe v. Wade

410 U.S. 113 (1973)


Roe v wade 1973

Roe v. Wade, 1973

  • Background:

    • Texas resident, Roe, sought to terminate her pregnancy by abortion. Texas law prohibited abortions except to save the pregnant woman's life.

    • After granting certiorari, the Court heard arguments twice. In the first hearing, the appellant could not find the constitutional point and her opponent could not take advantage of it.


Roe v wade 19731

Roe v. Wade, 1973

  • Question:

    • Does the Constitution embrace a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy by abortion?


Roe v wade 19732

Roe v. Wade, 1973

  • Finding:

    • The Court held that a woman's right to an abortion fell within the right to privacy (recognized in Griswold v. Connecticut) protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.


Roe v wade 19733

Roe v. Wade, 1973

  • Results:

    • The decision gave a woman total autonomy over the pregnancy during the first trimester and defined different levels of state interest for the second and third trimesters. As a result, the laws of 46 states were affected by the Court's ruling.


American politics and government

Next…

  • Your presentations begin

  • Note how I laid out each of the cases in four parts

  • It would behoove you to do the same, as it emphasizes the important issues of the case


  • Login