From left, Luke Remchuk, Kevin Newcomb and Jay Hartman were among demonstrators for free speech on Monday at the Supreme

3. One way to consider the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties" is to look at 1) what right is affected, and 2) whose right is affected. For example, as an employee . . . Can you say it is UNFAIR not to give me a promotion? I want a promotion NOW? But if you are a WOMAN you can say . . . . Or think of criminals�what can bad guy criminal argue? Can he say it is UNFAIR to lock me up when you aren�t locking up Sarah the practically perfect? Or Joe the good guy? . Can he say if you are going to lock me up , or Sarah up Joe up or anyone else up you have to treat me fairly???? So as a criminal you have civil _______ protections but not civil _________ guarantees As an employee, promotions are not guaranteed as a civil ________ but as a FEMALE employee you have a civil ___________ to be treated the same as the guy next to you., assuming everything else about you is the same (besides . . . Well ummm ask you mom) Libs; rts; libs, rts No, promotions are not in the const For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.) criminals�there is no CIVIL RIGHTS argument that would say that we have to treat bad guy criminals the same as good guy Joe the Plumber: you can lock up the bad guy and he can�t say but it�s not fair cuz you are not locking up Joe the Plumber . . . If you commit a crime, you have to do the time. . . Libs; rts; libs, rts No, promotions are not in the const For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.) criminals�there is no CIVIL RIGHTS argument that would say that we have to treat bad guy criminals the same as good guy Joe the Plumber: you can lock up the bad guy and he can�t say but it�s not fair cuz you are not locking up Joe the Plumber . . . If you commit a crime, you have to do the time. . .

4. Therefor answer to quiz q was that it had to be the First Congress NOT thr framers who added the b of rtsTherefor answer to quiz q was that it had to be the First Congress NOT thr framers who added the b of rts

5. A brief history of habeas corpus http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stm A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Ex post factoex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender. A brief history of habeas corpus http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stm A bill of attainder (also known as an act or writ of attainder) is an act of legislature declaring a person or group of persons guilty of some crime and punishing them without benefit of a trial. Ex post factoex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender.

6. Habeas corpus http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stmHabeas corpus http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4329839.stm

7. Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.Definition: A legislative act that singles out an individual or group for punishment without a trial.

8. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8001555 Even some Republicans were appalled, particularly by the suspension of habeas corpus. http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8001555 Even some Republicans were appalled, particularly by the suspension of habeas corpus.

10. That�s legitimacyThat�s legitimacy

13. But the civil liberties are guaranteed by one clause; civil rights granted by another: 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

21. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/RUCfordLTR.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/lawrence.htm&usg=__Qot9qSbf7Pl2kl6okHUqEdkvGbU=&h=1206&w=813&sz=185&hl=en&start=29&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=EsMoI9zqiIdvjM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtexas%2Bvs%2Blawrence%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1 has acutal statuehttp://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/RUCfordLTR.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/lawrence/lawrence.htm&usg=__Qot9qSbf7Pl2kl6okHUqEdkvGbU=&h=1206&w=813&sz=185&hl=en&start=29&zoom=1&itbs=1&tbnid=EsMoI9zqiIdvjM:&tbnh=150&tbnw=101&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dtexas%2Bvs%2Blawrence%26start%3D20%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Dactive%26sa%3DN%26gbv%3D2%26ndsp%3D20%26tbs%3Disch:1 has acutal statue

25. Worried about the Feds? Check the 5th amendment: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

28. Oconner this is much different than looking at the law�s effects Oconner this is much different than looking at the law�s effects

30. The Burger Court continued to apply this test, using it in 1972 to find unconstitutional (as applied to Amish families) Wisconsin's law mandating attendance in schools until age 17 (Yoder The Burger Court continued to apply this test, using it in 1972 to find unconstitutional (as applied to Amish families) Wisconsin's law mandating attendance in schools until age 17 (Yoder

31. Free excerciseFree excercise

34. Sect Allowed to Import Its Hallucinogenic Tea http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=2Sect Allowed to Import Its Hallucinogenic Tea http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/politics/22scotus.html?pagewanted=2

46. Conclusion on the ones from Kentucky: In a 5-4 opinion delivered by Justice David Souter, the majority held that the displays violated the establishment clause because their purpose had been to advance religion."

47. No. In 5-4 decision, and in a four-justice opinion delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that the establishment clause did not bar the monument on the grounds of Texas' state capitol building. The plurality deemed the Texas monument part of the nation's tradition of recognizing the Ten Commandments' historical meaning. Though the Commandments are religious, the plurality argued, "simply having religious content or promoting a message consistent with a religious doctrine does not run afoul of the establishment clause."

50. 2006-2007 term2006-2007 term

60. http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1211/p01s01-usju.htmlhttp://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1211/p01s01-usju.html

71. Free Speech and Campaign Finance Issues: is spending money on campaigns, speech? equality versus free speech (leveling the playing field for the less rich) Does appearance of corruption in our system justify limits

73. http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s01-uspo.html?page=3http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0626/p01s01-uspo.html?page=3

74. June 26, 2007June 26, 2007

76. 2006-2007 term2006-2007 term

77. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/scotuscases_ABORTION.html Casey : Under this analysis, the Court said that four sections of Pennsylvania's law did not impose an undue burden on the right to abortion and were constitutional. These sections require a woman to delay an abortion for 24 hours after listening to a presentation at the medical office intended to persuade them to change her mind; require teen-agers to have the consent of one parent or a judge; specify the medical emergencies in which the other requirements will be waived, and require the doctor or clinic to make statistical reports to the state. At the same time, by a 5-4 vote, the Court struck down a fifth provision requiring a married woman to tell her husband of her intent to have an abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/scotuscases_ABORTION.html Casey : Under this analysis, the Court said that four sections of Pennsylvania's law did not impose an undue burden on the right to abortion and were constitutional. These sections require a woman to delay an abortion for 24 hours after listening to a presentation at the medical office intended to persuade them to change her mind; require teen-agers to have the consent of one parent or a judge; specify the medical emergencies in which the other requirements will be waived, and require the doctor or clinic to make statistical reports to the state. At the same time, by a 5-4 vote, the Court struck down a fifth provision requiring a married woman to tell her husband of her intent to have an abortion.

81. 3/19/20083/19/2008

83. 6/25/086/25/08

84. NYT Aug 6th 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/washington/07gitmo.html?pagewanted=3&hpNYT Aug 6th 2008 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/06/washington/07gitmo.html?pagewanted=3&hp

93. establishmentestablishment