Civil Liberties
• cases: might help you to understand,but not test on.but you need to know the boundaries
distinguish civil liberty:
civil liberty-protections from "intrusive,abusive"gov
civil rights-protections thru gov"using to gov to ensure some sort of protection"
Protections FROM Government
-Speech,religion,search & seizures,criminal procedure,privacy,etc.
Slow but steady INCORPORATION to states
-First came the 1st Amendment,then criminal procedure,and then privacy
14th Amendment as the vehicle of incorporation
-Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses
Supreme Court as the catalyst (not Congress)
No right is absolute
E.g.,“free exercise”has evolved over time
Fundamental individual freedoms▯
Outlined & guaranteed in the Bill of Rights
-Barron v.Baltimore (1833)
[Bill of Rights do not apply to state governments]
-Due Process & Equal Protection Clauses: “No State shall…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.” -Initially designed to protect (former) slaves: state should give everyone a fair chance (due
process),should treat everybody equally
1-10 amendments: only to protect from federal government
supreme court thinks there is implicit logic: from state to state should be same
a piecemeal process occur.
congress has nothing to do with this,only the supreme court & citizens taking there cases to the
supreme court.Congress just passed the 14th Amendment.
Absorbs Bill of Rights provisions
-Protect from infringement by the states▯
Provisions “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty”
Supreme Court as the catalyst
Incorporation the Bill of Rights into the 14th Amendment
-you can see how bits and piece of amendment are incorporated▯
-the process is depended on cases brought to the supreme court
Freedom of Speech
Under what condition can gov to prevent me say / hold me liable Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
-Speech and criminal syndicalism
Ohio unlawful: thru you speech to incite political reform "which might turn into violence"
“Imminent lawless action”Test
•Does it incite others to engage in immediate unlawful action?
•A danger is present only when it is likely to be carried out.
•Still used today
Texas v.Johnson (1989)
-Burning a ﬂag is an expression of a political idea and thus constitutionally sanctioned
-“…if there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment,it is that the Government may
not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society ﬁnds the idea itself offensive or
disagreeable.”-Justice William Brennan
"The act cannot be prohibited,if it tries to incite violence it's a different story"
What distinctions are made? What are the boundaries?
-Regulating subject matter or political speech
-More Difficult to regulate
-standard-often "strict scrutiny"