American Government

PS 1010, American Government 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit III Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

1. Summarize the origins of American political thought. 1.1 Explain how historical thought and tradition affect civil liberties and rights.

6. Discuss how policies affect change.

6.1 Describe how politics intersects with civil rights. 6.2 Express an opinion regarding right to privacy violations.

Course/Unit Learning Outcomes

Learning Activity

1.1

Unit III Lesson Reading: “Vote Dilution and Suppression in Indian Country” Reading: “Equality and American Democracy” Reading: “The Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Divide” Unit III Scholarly Activity

6.1 Unit III Lesson Reading: “Black Lives Matter and the Struggle for Freedom” Unit III Scholarly Activity

6.2

Unit III Lesson Reading: “Social and Political Implications of the Infringement of the Right to

Private Life” Unit III Scholarly Activity

Reading Assignment To access the following resources, click the links below. Allen, D. (2016). Equality and American democracy. Foreign Affairs, 95(1), 23–28. Retrieved from

https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login? auth=CAS&url=http://search.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/17530524 81?accountid=33337

Jones, B. P. (2016). Black Lives Matter and the struggle for freedom. Monthly Review, 68(4), 1–8. Retrieved

from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login? auth=CAS&url=http://search.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/18156270 81?accountid=33337

Schmidt, C. W. (2016). The civil rights-civil liberties divide. Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties,

12(1), 1–41. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login? auth=CAS&url=http://search.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/18190694 38?accountid=33337

Schroedel, J., & Hart, R. (2015). Vote dilution and suppression in Indian country. Studies in American Political

Development, 29(1), 40–67. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login? auth=CAS&url=http://search.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/16721179 07?accountid=33337

UNIT III STUDY GUIDE

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights

PS 1010, American Government 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Voinea, R. E. (2015). Social and political implications of the infringement of the right to private life. Revista de Stiinte Politice, 2015(47), 187–195. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login? auth=CAS&url=http://search.proquest.com.libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/docview/17219416 41?accountid=33337

Unit Lesson Through the decades, the intentions of the Framers for each of the amendments comprising the Bill of Rights have been stretched and modified according to the needs of society. No matter the application or interpretation, as Thomas Jefferson said in 1787, “A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth” (Jefferson, 1787, para. 2). A person’s civil liberties are those individual rights, such as speech, that are protected by the U.S. Constitution from infringement upon by the government. The Bill of Rights serves to limit the government by recognizing the rights of the people and detailing what actions the government may or may not take. While these rights are protected, the protection is not unlimited. Even though the courts have broadened these individual rights and helped protect these liberties, the courts have also put limits on a person’s rights. A person’s rights are not limited unless they infringe upon the rights of others. The Bill of Rights includes provisions for freedom of speech, assembly, and religion unless they infringe upon the safety and rights of others. Citizens also have protection from unreasonable search and seizure, arrest without probable cause, and self-incrimination. In the United States, a person cannot be criminally prosecuted twice for the same crime if innocence is ruled in the first trial. Indeed, a citizen may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without a fair and proper trial. Regardless of his or her economic status, every citizen has the right to an attorney and can confront witnesses in a speedy and open trial. Bails and fines must also be set reasonably. Further, if found guilty, citizens are protected against any cruel and unusual punishment. Over the years, the Supreme Court has ruled on various cases, explaining, expanding, or protecting many of the rights noted within the Bill of Rights. For example, the Supreme Court in Gitlow v. New York (1925) used the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process clause to protect the First Amendment right of free speech, and, within the next decade, the Supreme Court also expanded such protections to the rights of press, religion, and assembly. Even though the Supreme Court has expanded the protection of our First Amendment rights and freedoms, the Court has also put limits on these freedoms. In Schenck v. United States (1919), the Supreme Court upheld the Espionage Act of 1917, allowing the federal government to limit free speech in the interest of national security. In the ruling, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic" (Schenck v. United States, 1919, p. 52). This case would result in the creation of the clear-and-present-danger test of determining when the government could legally limit free speech (Schenck v. United States, 1919). Chelsea Manning, a private first class in the Army, was arrested in 2010 for giving classified military information to WikiLeaks for release on the Internet. In July 2013, Manning was convicted by court martial of violations of the Espionage Act in addition to various other charges although she did avoid the most serious charge of aiding an enemy (Tate, 2013). Some forms of hate speech have been protected if such speech falls in line with the imminent lawless action test. Symbolic speech such as the burning of the American flag has also been protected except in the case of draft card burning because that deals with the military’s work force needs. The Supreme Court ruled in the Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag burning case that expression could not be prohibited for the sole reason that society is offended by the idea or disagrees with its substance. While the court did not believe that protection of criminal rights was as important as the right to free expression, they did rule in Powell v. Alabama (1932) that no matter the ability to pay, a defendant in a capital punishment case must be provided legal counsel. The Supreme Court would not visit criminal rights again until the 1960s when it would overturn the conviction of Dollree Mapp in Mapp v. Ohio. In that case, the court concluded that evidence acquired through an unconstitutional search, known as poison fruit, cannot be used to obtain a conviction in state courts (Mapp v. Ohio, 1961).

PS 1010, American Government 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (U.S. Const. amend. I). This is known as the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause. The Supreme Court has ruled on several occasions that the establishment clause requires that the government not favor any one religion over another or support religion over non-religion (First Amendment Center, n.d.). Through the years, this interpretation has been extended to prohibit prayer in school, religious displays on public property, and teaching of creationism or intelligent design in public schools; however, the court has ruled that public money can go to religious schools for secular textbooks, and tax-supported school vouchers can be used to attend a private or religious school (First Amendment Center, n.d.). Additionally, the free-exercise clause holds that an individual can have any religious belief he or she chooses and may opt out of saluting the flag, but the court has ruled that an individual cannot act on those beliefs if they violate a valid law, such as the prohibition on polygamy (First Amendment Center, n.d.). The mere act of enumerating the civil liberties named in the Bill of Rights does not guarantee these civil or equal rights under the law. Civil and equal rights mean that every individual has the right to equal protection under the law and to the same access to opportunities and facilities as everyone else (Patterson, 2012). The Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868 after the Civil War, states that “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" (U.S. Const. amend. XIV). With the Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) Supreme Court ruling of “separate-but-equal,” the door would be slammed on the equal rights of African Americans for decades to come. The Plessy ruling would not begin to unravel until the late 1940s and early 1950s with cases such as Brown v. Board of Education that did away with the principle of “separate but equal.” In 1954, the court began the process of reversing Plessy with its ruling in Brown v. Board of Education. Using the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court ruled saying, “Racial segregation of public schools generates [among Black children] a feeling of inferiority as to their status in the community that may affect their hearts and minds in a way unlikely ever to be undone…Separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954, p. 494). It would still be years before the South would be forced to integrate by busing children out of their neighborhoods. The children sometimes spent hours on buses to and from school in order to attend desegregated schools. To get around this court order, many White families moved to the suburbs because busing across school districts was prohibited. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 would bring our nation’s biggest leap in achieving equal protection for minorities. There was much resistance to this act, with many establishments still refusing to serve Black customers. The

Supreme Court would use the commerce clause to force compliance in cases such as Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States and Katzenbach v. McClung. Perhaps the most notable figure of this era was Martin Luther King, Jr. King was a vocal supporter of civil rights. His fierce determination and dedication to the cause led to his becoming the youngest person to ever win the Nobel Peace Prize. He was 35 years old when he received this honor ("Martin Luther King Jr.," 1972). Though he was deeply revered by many who favored equal rights, he was deeply loathed by those who did not. On April 4, 1968, while in Memphis, Tennessee, to lead a protest march, King was assassinated ("Martin Luther King Jr.," 1972). His efforts would prove inspirational for generations to come, particularly the “I Have a Dream” speech he delivered on August 28, 1963, at the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom political rally. Significant strides would continue. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 would outlaw the literacy tests used to keep many Blacks from voting. It would also give federal agents the power to register voters. This act has been renewed several times, with the latest renewal keeping it in effect until 2030 (American Civil Liberties Union, n.d.).

Martin Luther King, Jr. showing his medallion received from Mayor Wagner (Stanziola, 1964)

PS 1010, American Government 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Inspired by the Black Civil Rights Movement, other minority groups would begin to demand their equal rights as well. These groups included women, who were seen as the property of their husbands; and Hispanics, especially migrant farm workers who worked long hours for little pay and were forced to live in shacks and were refused schooling. Native Americans, whose numbers had been severely reduced, also began to demand their equal rights under the law. Native Americans were at last given U.S. citizenship in 1924 (A&E Television Networks, 2010). Affirmative action was an executive order issued in 1961 by then-president John F. Kennedy (Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, n.d.). This order was supposed to make sure that applicants are given employment regardless of race or background. While it had many good intentions in attempting to eliminate de facto discrimination, it has been challenged in the Supreme Court many times because it has at times had reverse discrimination outcomes (Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, n.d.). For more than five decades, the court system has attempted to remedy many of the injustices faced by minority groups. There are still many issues to be argued, especially in the realm of gay rights, transgender issues, and age discrimination. It is ironic and perhaps a bit tragic that such issues are pervasive in the United States—a country which has idealized the concept of equality. Unfortunately, it appears as if we have much more to accomplish in order to achieve justice for all.

References A&E Television Networks. (2010). The Indian Citizenship Act. Retrieved from http://www.history.com/this-day-

in-history/the-indian-citizenship-act American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). The Voting Rights Act. Retrieved from

https://www.aclu.org/issues/voting-rights/voting-rights-act Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954). First Amendment Center. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions—Religion. Retrieved from

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faq/frequently-asked-questions-religious-liberty/ Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925). Jefferson, T. (1787, December). To James Madison from Thomas Jefferson, 20 December 1787. Retrieved

from https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-10-02-0210#JSMN-01-10-02-0210-fn- 0003

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. (n.d.). Affirmative action. Retrieved from

http://www.civilrights.org/resources/civilrights101/affirmaction.html Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). Martin Luther King Jr.—Biography. (1972). In Haberman, F. W. (Ed.), Nobel Lectures, Peace 1951-1970.

Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1964/king-bio.html

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45 (1932). Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919). Stanziola. P. (1964). Martin Luther King Jr with medallion NYWTS [Photograph]. Retrieved from

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Martin_Luther_King_Jr_with_medallion_NYWTS.jpg

PS 1010, American Government 5

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Tate, J. (2013, August 21). Bradley Manning sentenced to 35 years in WikiLeaks case. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/judge-to-sentence-bradley- manning-today/2013/08/20/85bee184-09d0-11e3-b87c- 476db8ac34cd_story.html?utm_term=.4775a9cafd26

Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989). U.S. Const. amend. I. U.S. Const. amend. XIV.

Suggested Reading To access the following resources, click the links below. This brief reading provides a quick comparison of civil liberties and civil rights. FindLaw. (2016). Civil rights vs. civil liberties. Retrieved from http://civilrights.findlaw.com/civil-rights-

overview/civil-rights-vs-civil-liberties.html This reading discusses civil rights and civil liberties, and it identifies the distinctions between the two. Independence Hall Association. (n.d.). 10. Civil liberties and civil rights. Retrieved from

http://www.ushistory.org/gov/10.asp