POLS_110_-_Lecture_25

POLS_110_-_Lecture_25 - Yet another insight brought to you...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–9. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Yet another insight brought to you by OTA H2O Productions.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Chapter 15 (cont’d): THE COURTS
Background image of page 2
Photo courtesy of Rajean Gallagher.
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Reviewing Standards of Review in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Cases: In all cases, the court balances the government’s interest against the infringement on the individual’s constitutional right or liberty. The decision of which test to apply generally determines whether the government or the individual wins the case.
Background image of page 4
Reviewing Standards of Review in Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Cases (cont’d): Levels of Scrutiny: Strict Scrutiny: Used in equal protection clause cases for “suspect classifications” and in due process clause cases for fundamental rights. Test: Was the law or action necessary to advancing a compelling state interest ? Heightened or Exacting Scrutiny: (Strict Rationality) Used in equal protection cases for “quasi-suspect classifications,” meaning to date, gender may be expanding to sexual preference. Test: Does the law bear a substantial relationship to an important governmental interest ? Ordinary Scrutiny: Used in evaluating constitutionality of ordinary legislation that does not discriminate on basis of suspect classification or infringe on fundamental rights. Test: Was the law rationally related to achieving a legitimate governmental objective ?
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Freedom of Speech: Political Speech Abrams v. United States (1919) Gitlow v. New York (1925) finally incorporated freedom of speech but Gitlow still left in jail Schenck v. United States (1919) censorship only when speech poses a “clear and present danger” Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969): danger must be immediate Image courtesy of nyc.indymedia.org
Background image of page 6
Freedom of Speech: Actions and Symbolic Speech Speech mixed with conduct may be restricted if the restrictions on conduct do not restrict speech Symbolic expressions may also receive less protection from the Court Texas v. Johnson (1989) flag desecration falls under free expression protections Image courtesy of political-news.org
Background image of page 7

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
One major exception to
Background image of page 8
Image of page 9
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 19

POLS_110_-_Lecture_25 - Yet another insight brought to you...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 9. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online