1.14 con law - Wasn't until 1925 that the US allowed for...

← Wasn’t until 1925 that the US allowed for free speech. Wasn’t until 1940 that the
Constitution allowed for free exercise of free religion. Wasn’t until early 1930s that the
Supreme Court said that a person tried in a capital crime in state court had a right to an
attorney. 1960s, anyone tried in state court with a prison sentence… had right to attorney.
←
← 2
nd rd
amendment not applied to state and local government.
←
← 5
th
amendment, never applied to state and local governments, if state wants to try
for a crime without being
←
← there hasn’t been a case of forcing to house soldiers.
←
← Attica prison riot, brought in Nat’l Guard. Had citizens house the troops.
←
← How are our constitutional rights challenged? Rights in the Constittuion are not
absolute. Even when its praised in seemingly absolute terms, is not treated as absolute.
←
← 1 st Ammendment, written in absolute terms. Page xlvii.
←
← Ex. Perjury laws… if they lie under oath it’s a crime.
←
← Even the 1 st amendment is not absolute.
←
← Right to raise your own children doesn’t allow them to abuse them.
← Right to not be discriminated or race be used by the gov’t can be relative ie.
Infiltrating gangs.

←
← Balancing- a scale, right side and wrong side,
←
← Levels of Scrutiny-
← 3 of them… Peers of review.
← 1) strict scrutiny- the most exact type of review. When the court uses it, the gov’t
usually loses.
← Definition- under strict scrutiny a law is upheld if it is necessary to achieve a
compelling gov’t purpose.
← Privacy- most gov’t interference of privacy rights, to procreate, use
contraceptives… etc. . if the gov’t will interfere, must meet strict scrutiny, race
discrimination must meet strict scrutiny.
← In order to demonstrate that the law is necessary, must prove that there is no less
strict alternative.
←
←
← June 28
th
, 2007- Parents involved with Community Schools vs. Seattle School
district #1- could school systems use race as a factor to assign children to schools to
desegregate. Is using race necessary to achieve desegregation? Gov’t should not use race
b/c not necessary to achieve desegregation. Use it as an example. Under strict scrutiny,
the gov’t has the burden of proof. The law will be upheld only if gov’t can prove action is
necessary to achieve a compelling public interest/government interest.
← Balancing of unnecessary action, desegregation is in your interest?