civil liberties l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Civil Liberties PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Civil Liberties

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 16

Civil Liberties - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 326 Views
  • Uploaded on

Civil Liberties. Freedom from govt interference Limits on what govt can do No’s Bill of Rights – National Govt. Incorporation of Bill of Rights. 14 th Amendment “due process” clause Due process = Bill of Rts ? Due process = some of Bill of Rts ?

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Civil Liberties' - elina


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
civil liberties

Civil Liberties

Freedom from govt interference

Limits on what govt can do

No’s

Bill of Rights – National Govt

incorporation of bill of rights
Incorporation of Bill of Rights
  • 14th Amendment “due process” clause
    • Due process = Bill of Rts ?
    • Due process = some of Bill of Rts ?
    • Due process have no relation to Bill of Rts?
  • Selective incorporation
    • most of Bill of Rts protections binding on states
    • Incremental jud’l decisions – Table 5.1
privacy
Privacy
  • not specifically mentioned in the Constitution
  • Question of how to define
  • Warren & Brandeis HLR (1890) “right to be let alone”
  • Illustrates the non-absolute nature of “rights”
privacy4
Privacy
  • implied in or derived from other rights
    • 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, and 9th amendments create a penumbra – Justice Douglas
    • 14th liberty interest
  • two strands of constitutional interpretation re. privacy
    • 4th amendment protection against “unreasonable search and seizure”
    • reproductive privacy
katz v united states 1967
Katz v. United States (1967)
  • “Fourth Amendment cannot be translated into a general right to privacy”
  • “Virtually every governmental action interferes with privacy to some degree.”
katz v united states 19676
Katz v. United States (1967)
  • “Reasonable expectation of privacy” – 2 part test:
    • person have exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy
    • the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable’ (objective)
drug testing in public schools
Drug Testing in Public Schools
  • Veronia School District v. Acton (1995)
    • Oregon
    • drug testing of student athletes upheld
    • 6-3 opinion
    • purpose of testing:
      • prevent student athletes from using drugs
      • protect their health and safety
      • provide drug users with assistance
    • Court upheld suspicionless drug testing of athletes
bd of ed of pottawatomie county v earls 2002
Bd of Ed of Pottawatomie County v. Earls (2002)
  • testing of all middle and high school students involved in extracurricular activities
  • Oklahoma
  • choir member
  • 5-4 decision (Breyer – key to majority)
    • school’s custodial responsibility and authority -> limited expectation of privacy
    • intrusion/invasiveness of procedure – controlled
    • reasonable
reproductive privacy
Reproductive Privacy
  • Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
    • struck down a CT law that prohibited the prescription or use of contraceptives as an infringement on marital privacy
    • 7-2 decision but disagreement as to constitutional basis
      • Douglas – penumbra created “zones of privacy”
      • 9th Amendment protects rights not expressly mentioned
      • “liberty” of 14th amendment
eisenstadt v baird 1972
Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
  • MA law made it a felony to give anyone other than a married person contraceptive medicines or devices
  • established that privacy was right of individual
  • “Equal protection” of 14th Amend
roe v wade 1973
Roe v. Wade (1973)
  • TX statute made it a felony for anyone to perform an abortion except to save the life of the woman
  • 7-2 decision ruled unconstitutional
  • right to privacy encompasses a woman’s decision to terminate a pregnancy
  • 14th Amend – lower court said 9th
roe v wade 197312
Roe v. Wade (1973)
  • not absolute right – state has interest in
    • safeguarding health – 2nd trimester
    • protecting potential life – 3rd trimester
webster v reproductive health services 1989
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
  • Missouri statute
    • Preamble – life begins at conception
    • Viability tests
    • Prohibitions on public funds for counseling
webster v reproductive health services 198914
Webster v. Reproductive Health Services (1989)
  • 5-4 decision
  • 4 justices – Rehnquist, White, Scalia & Kennedy would have reversed Roe
  • 4 justices – Blackmun, Brennan, Marshall & Stevens would have upheld Roe
  • O’Connor – upheld providions but not overturn Roe
planned parenthood of se pa v casey 1992
Planned Parenthood of SE PA v. Casey (1992)
  • 5-4 decision
  • O’Connor – abolished trimester and established “undue burden”
  • Only part of PA law ruled unconstitutional was notification of spouse
  • Legal “gray”
stenberg v carhart 2000
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000)
  • Nebraska “late term” or “partial birth” abortion prohibition was vague and unenforceable
  • 5-4 decision