Norton Seth POL 2241 Brown Chapter 5: Civil Liberties 1. Please define the following terms: Clear and present danger test- Law should not punish speech unless there was a clear and present danger of producing harmful actions. Due process of law- Denies the government the right, without due process, to deprive people of life, liberty, and property Equal protection of the law- A standard of equal treatment that must be observed by the government. Establishment clause- First Amendment ban on laws "respecting an establishment of religion." Exclusionary rule- Improperly gathered evidence may not be introduced in a criminal trial. Freedom of expression- Right of the people to speak, publish, and assemble. Freedom of religion- People shall be free to exercise their religion, and government may not establish a religion. Free-exercise clause- First Amendment requirement that law cannot prevent free exercise of religion. Good-faith exception- An error in gathering evidence sufficiently minor that it may be used in trial. Libel- Writing that falsely injuries another person. Prior restraint- Censorship of a publication. Probable cause- Reasonable cause for issuing a search warrant or making an arrest; more than mere suspicion. Search warrant- A judge's order authorizing a search. Selective incorporation- Court cases that apply Bill of Rights to states. Symbolic speech- An act that conveys a political message. Wall of separation- Court ruling that government cannot be involved in religion. 2. Since the 1960s, the U.S. Supreme Court has extended free speech protections to include political speech endorsing violent overthrow of the government. In light of the 9/11 attacks and the ongoing security threats posed by terrorists, should the Court continue to protect violent speech, or should the government restrict political views espoused by radical ideologues? It would be unconstitutional to restrain this type of speech. Instead of restricting them from using violent speech with radical ideas that is aimed to harm the country and its people, keep a very close eye on them and who they talk to. With these acts they may even be able to use the Patriot Act to use digital surveillance and thwart any real threat and hopefully get most of the player in the plot. 3. In 2006, the New York Times was widely criticized for exposing details about a secret government program that tracked the financial activities of suspected terrorists while the operation was still in effect. The Times claimed that the program was a matter of public
interest and that the operation was not jeopardized by the revelation of the details. In the past, the U.S. Supreme Court has prohibited government attempts to censor publications; however, after the Times publication, some critics alleged that the publisher's actions were treasonable. Should the Court restrict the publication of details regarding ongoing government operations? Should the standards vary depending on the nation's peacetime/ wartime status? In article III, section 3or the Constitution states "Treason against the United States, shall consist only levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid or Comfort." The court should restrict the details of operations used against current and possible enemies of the country. The fact that they (Times) went into detail and compromised the integrity of the mission during a time of war is very near treasonous according to the Constitution, by giving them Aid in the form of knowledge of the operation. 4. In Katz v. United States (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that the government must obtain a warrant before searching and seizing a conversation using a wiretap on a public phone. In his dissent, however, Justice Black emphatically stated that " . . . the Fourth Amendment simply does not apply to eavesdropping." Do you think that the government should be required to obtain a warrant before eavesdropping on a private conversation? Should the warrant requirement also extend to conversations that are held in public or that can be overheard by those passing by? Should it extend to electronic conversations (e.g., text messaging or blogging) as well? If there is probable cause their shouldn't be a problem in getting a warrant, so I think they a warrant is need in order to keep the checks and balances and prevent and imbalance in power. If the conversation is in public the information is fair game. For electronic conversations, there should be a filter put in place (there probably already is) to pick up on key words. Once there is a hit on those words the agency should get a warrant to look deeper into the conversation and that person's other e-conversations. 5. The Patriot Act has been extensively criticized for its reduction of civil liberties protections for terrorism suspects. Since terrorism is largely conspiratorial and secretive by nature, does it make sense to expect the government to follow the same rules when investigating terrorism activities as it does when investigating other crimes? What are the arguments for and against treating terrorism as just another type of crime? Terrorism is used to harm others and spread terror. The terrorists are not conventional; therefore conventional investigation tactics shouldn't be used. Terrorists must be dealt with swiftly and accordingly. They want to kill people, that is their sole purpose in life. Other criminal investigations need not fall under the Patriot Act because people who commit crimes, other then terror crimes, aren't living solely to hurt people (the exception is serial criminals, these criminals are usually mentally disturbed and not doing their crimes in the name of a radical group).
Chapter 6: Civil Rights 1. Define the following terms: Affirmative action- designed Programs to increase minority participation in some institution (businesses, schools, labor unions, or government agencies) by taking positive steps to appoint more minority group members Civil disobedience- Opposing a law one considers unjust by peacefully disobeying it and accepting the resultant punishment. Civil rights- The rights of people to be treated without unreasonable or unconstitutional differences. De facto segregation- Racial segregation that occurs in schools, not as a result of the law, bur as a result of patterns of residential settlement. De jure segregation- Racial segregation that is required by law. Equality of opportunity- Giving people the equal chance to succeed. Equality of result- Making certain that people achieve the same result. Police powers- State power to enact laws promoting health, safety, and morals. Reverse discrimination- Using sex or race to give preferential treatment to some people. Separate-but-equal doctrine- The doctrine established in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that African Americans could constitutionally be kept in separate but equal facilities. Strict scrutiny-A Supreme Court test to see if a law denies equal protection because it does not serve a compelling state interest and is not narrowly tailored to achieve that goal. Suspect classifications- Classifications of people on the basis of their race or ethnicity. 2. What are the advantages of fighting for civil rights in the courts, rather than in the political arena? What are the disadvantages associated with this strategy? Is the president or governor required to support or implement a controversial or unpopular judicial ruling? The advantages are courts are ruled and guide through doctrine. In the political arena there are very many views and nothing really is going to constrain them for expressing those views. I'm sure there are some public officials, both white and black, that have a lot of hatred for the other color. So the fighting in courts should take away the personal view and allow the case to be looked at by higher courts as well. The disadvantages are the time it would take to decide and try to implement the decisions. Also, the ruling handed down may not be the most popular and make it harder to implement. Yes they do, but being required to or not doesn't make them adhere to the ruling much differently. Take former governor George Wallace he defied the ruling of white schools being open to black students and by doing so was not supporting or implementing the law. 3. Affirmative action programs were once routinely used to right the wrongs of previous discrimination practices. Although the Supreme Court still permits their use if they are "narrowly drawn," a few states, such as California (1996) and Michigan (2006) have opted to end their programs completely. Affirmative action supporters argue that these
programs are still necessary because the playing fields of higher education, employment, and government service are not yet level. Yet, opponents of affirmative action argue that no one involved in these programs today has been the victim of discriminatory policies. Which side do you think is correct? How does the "level playing field" argument reflect the philosophies of equality of opportunity and equality of result. In today`s job markets I don't believe affirmative action should be applied. Today employers are looking for the best qualified people that will be able to help the company achieve the highest amount of income. It almost seems that, in certain parts of the U.S., that it is now being discriminatory towards the majority. The company should hire the best qualified candidate, through resume and/or interviews. I think the playing field got reversed. I had a friend who was white and was appointed as the company equal opportunity representative and at the class a female, who was black, also attending the class, told him he couldn't be the EO rep. because he was white. How is that equal opportunity if the accepted practice is that a minority can only be the representative for equal opportunity? 4. In the last twenty years, women in positions of political power went from being a novelty to being relatively commonplace. With notable women such as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Senator Hillary Clinton occupying high governmental positions, is it safe to say that women are no longer second-class political citizens, or are there still benchmarks that must be reached before this is true? It would depend on who you talk to and the demographics of the region. In my eyes everyone is equal and has an equal shot at succeeding, but every now and then I am seeing discrimination, such as black vs. white and white vs. black, it is going both ways. With that being said there are still benchmarks that must be reached and an ignorance that must be wiped away. All of this will take time and education. 5. One of the perennial objections to ratifying the Equal Rights Amendment is that once enacted, Congress could no longer constitutionally exempt women from the military draft or from certain combat positions. Given that women now routinely participate in other "male" occupations--including the military--does the wholesale exclusion of women from the draft still make sense? Can you think of any reason why men and women should be treated differently with regard to mandatory military service? No, the whole sale of women being excluded from the draft does not make sense. Everyone wanted equal right and now they have them they should not be able to pick and choose which ones they want equal. I cannot think of any reason they should be treated differently. Obviously they shouldn't be in direct combat arms units, but they can still serve and do other jobs in the military.