Government Chapter 14

What did the 14th amendment do

set forth a few way to how citizenship can be defined or considered

Citizen by birth

specifically birth on American soil-law by soil. Nearly all people born on American soil(and territories) are citizens, including children of non citizens. Does not happen if you are not under US jurisdiction(children of ambassadors and diplomats)

Citizen by birth to an American parent

following the law of blood. Your parents are US citizens. If born in another country that child is an automatic US citizen because their parents are. A bit more complicated. As long one parent at one point in time in their life their child are a citizen. If only one parent is a US citizen the child is an automatic citizen as long as that parent has lived in the US for at least 5 years, two of which were after the age of 14.

Citizenship by naturalization

You have to have been in this country legally. Almost impossible to get citizenship once designated illegal. Dificult for people who came as children. At least 18 years old to apply for citizenship, have to have been a resident alien(green card) for at least five years. Fill out paperwork, then comes interviews and questioning. Like questions about morality. Need two witnesses that are US citizens, they ask them the questions about morality about you. Want to get a sense of you.

Civics test

oral test, changes every few years. Tests basic knowledge of US history and government. Questions are asked and answered in English. Basic understanding of English required. Finally you take an oath swearing to live by the American policies. You get a certificate of naturalization, it is proof that you are a citizen.

Losing citizenship

3 ways, very hard, case by case basis

Expatriation

losing one’s citizenship by becoming a citizen in another country and living there permanently.

Second way

punishment for serious crimes of disloyalty. Do something like treason

Denaturalization

fraud or deception in the naturalization process

4th Amendment

protects the accused(no unreasonable searches and seizures). To be reasonable most of the time a warrant is needed. To arrest or search someone. Warrant signed by a judge, has to be very specific(what they are looking for, who they are arresting), have to get permission in order to do these things. Don’t need a warrant if they stop a crime, or if they think something is life threatening. Lots of things are case by case basis.

Evidence obtained without a warrant can’t

be used because of the exclusionary rule. Police do not need a warrant to search your outside garbage(once out of physical dwelling is fair game).

5th amendment

Can’t testify against yourself(right to remain silent). Cannot self incriminate. Even when innocent usually not put on stand(could still do something to make you look guilty).

The 5th not always understood or clear.

Interrogation and testifying against yourself

ven before indictment if you make a statement without a lawyer present cannot be used as evidence. The moment you become a suspect this applies. Miranda wasn’t given a fair trial because he was not told his rights, out of this comes the fact that police have to state your Miranda rights.

Miranda only applies

during interrogation, to suspects not witnesses, and if you have a lawyer. Once you ask for a lawyer and it is not granted anything you say does not count

Equal protection clause

states& gov can’t make unreasonable distinction among groups of people.Can’t pass laws that treat one group of people differently than another group. Key word is unreasonable because there are laws that treat people differently(ex: people who smoke pay a tax on cigarettes that people who don’t smoke have to pay).

What does the SC do to make sure the 14th amendment isn’t being violated

Three tests

Rational basis test

court will uphold state law if the state can show good reason for the classification. Test asks if the law is reasonably related to an acceptable goal of the government.

Suspect classification

laws that treat people differently based on their race or national origin. Today, not enough to show that the law is rational, in order for the law to be upheld, has to be a law needed to protect the public, a compelling need to have that law. This idea would never uphold today.

Fundamental rights

Is that law having to do with fundamental rights? These rights are at the heart of the justice system. Usually would not be upheld today.

Discrimination

someone is treated differently simply because of race, gender, age, ethnicity, disability, sexual orientation. Discrimination illegal on every level. But it is very hard to prove