Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

liberties= protection from the government

Civil liberties

Constitutionally established guarantees and freedoms that protect citizens, opinions, and property against arbitrary government interference

Civil War amendments

The Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, which abolished slavery and granted civil liberties and voting rights to newly freed people after the Civil War

Due process clause

Part of the Fourteenth Amendment that forbids states from denying “life, liberty, or property” to any person without due process of law. (A nearly identical clause in the Fifth Amendment applies only to the national government.)

Selective incorporation

The process through which most of the civil liberties granted in the Bill of Rights were applied to the states on a case-by-case basis through the Fourteenth Amendment

Establishment clause

Part of the First Amendment that states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” which has been interpreted to mean that Congress cannot sponsor or favor any religion

Free excercise clause

Part of the First Amendment that states that Congress cannot prohibit or interfere with the practice of religion unless there are important secular reasons for doing so

Lemon test

The Supreme Court uses this test, established in Lemon v. Kurtzman, to determine whether a practice violates the First Amendment’s establishment clause

Wisonsin v. Yoder

A 1972 case in which the Supreme Court held that compelling Amish students to attend school past the eighth grade violates the free exercise clause. The ruling opened the door to homeschooling, which is a common practice today

Strict scruitny

The highest level of scrutiny the courts can use when determining whether a law is constitutional. To meet this standard, the law or policy must be shown to serve a “compelling state interest” or goal, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal, and it must be the least restrictive means of achieving that goal

Intermediate scruitny

The middle level of scrutiny the courts can use when determining whether a law is constitutional. To meet this standard, the law or policy must be “content neutral,” must further an important government interest in a way that is “substantially related” to that interest, and must use means that are a close fit to the government’s goal and not substantially broader than is necessary to accomplish that goal

Clear and present danger test

Established in Schenck v. United States, this test allowed the government to restrict certain types of speech deemed dangerous

Direct incitement test

Established in Brandenburg v. Ohio, this test protects threatening speech under the First Amendment unless that speech aims to and is likely to cause imminent “lawless action.”

Symbolic speech

Nonverbal expression, such as the use of signs or symbols. It benefits from many of the same constitutional protections as verbal speech because of its expressive value

Hate speech

Expression that is offensive or abusive, particularly in terms of race, gender, or sexual orientation. It is currently protected under the First Amendment

Prior restraint

A limit on freedom of the press that allows the government to prohibit the media from publishing certain materials

Fighting words

Forms of expression that “by their very utterance” can incite violence. These can be regulated by the government but are often difficult to define

Slander

Spoken false statements that damage a person’s reputation. They can be regulated by the government but are often difficult to distinguish from permissible speech

Libel

Written false statements that damage a person’s reputation. They can be regulated by the government but are often difficult to distinguish from permissible speech

Commercial speech

Public expression with the aim of making a profit. It has received greater protection under the First Amendment in recent years but remains less protected than political speech

Miller test

Established in Miller v. California, this three-part test is used by the Supreme Court to determine whether speech meets the criteria for obscenity. If so, it can be restricted by the government

Tinker v. Des Moines School District

In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that students may wear armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The Court noted that the students “were not disruptive and did not impinge upon the rights of others” and therefore their conduct was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments

New York Times Co. v. United States

The Supreme Court ruled in 1971 that the government could not prevent the publication of the Pentagon Papers, which revealed lies about the progress of the war in Vietnam

McDonald v. Chicago

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms for self-defense in one’s home is applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment

Due process rights

The idea that laws and legal proceedings must be fair. The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person’s “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Other specific due process rights are found in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments, such as protection from self-incrimination and freedom from illegal searches

Exclusionary rule

The principle that illegally or unconstitutionally acquired evidence cannot be used in a criminal trial

Miranda rights

The list of civil liberties described in the Fifth Amendment that must be read to a suspect before anything the suspect says can be used in a trial

Double jeopardy

Being tried twice for the same crime. This is prevented by the Fifth Amendment

Gideon v. Wainwright

The 1963 Supreme Court case that guaranteed the right to an attorney for the poor or indigent for felony offenses

Privacy rights

Liberties protected by several amendments in the Bill of Rights that shield certain personal aspects of citizens’ lives from governmental interference, such as the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and seizures

Roe v. Wade

This 1973 Supreme Court case extended the right of privacy to a woman’s decision to have an abortion while recognizing legitimate state interests in potential life and maternal health. The Court noted that the “relative weight of each of these interests varies over the course of pregnancy, and the law must account for this variability.”