Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

Chapter 4

Civil Liberties

Chapter Summary

Civil liberties refer to restraining the government’s actions against individual rights outlined in the Bill of Rights. A few rights, like prohibiting ex post facto laws are found in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution.

The Bill of Rights

Most citizens are not aware that the Bill of Rights originally applied only to the national government. The Supreme Court, through the process referred to as incorporation, has employed the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to apply many of the protections set forth in the Bill of Rights to the states. The first right to be incorporated was the freedom of speech in Gitlow v. New York (1925). Not all of the protections in the Bill of Rights have been made applicable to the states. See Table 4-1 for a list of cases incorporating various aspects of the Bill of Rights.

Freedom of Religion

The First Amendment begins with two basic principles of religious freedom. The first prohibits the governmental establishment of religion and the second embodies protection for the free exercise of religion. The first words in the First Amendment are “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” In the view of Thomas Jefferson the establishment clause was intended to create a “wall of separation” between church and state. The establishment clause has produced conflicts over governmental aid to religious schools, prayer in public school, and the clash between the teaching of evolution and creationism. In Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that direct state aid could not be used to subsidize religious instruction. This case created a three-part test for establishment clause questions, focusing on the purpose of governmental actions, the primary effects of those actions and whether the government had become involved in an excessive entanglement with religion. The use of government vouchers for religious education has so far been upheld by the Supreme Court, but important issues remain. In the Engel v. Vitale case (1962) the Court ruled that school sponsored prayer was a violation of the establishment clause. Wallace v. Jaffree (1985) struck down an Alabama law calling for a moment of silence that was to be used for silent prayer or meditation. Prayer at public school graduation ceremonies was limited in Lee v. Weisman (1992). The teaching of creationism was addressed in Edwards v. Aguillard (1987), in which the Supreme Court struck a Louisiana law calling for the teaching of creationism as well as evolution in public schools. However, it would be incorrect to assume that the Court is trying to achieve an inviolable and absolute separation of church and state. In the 1995 case of Rosenberger v. University of Virginia, the Court ruled that the university must provide support to a student religious group if it was also supporting other nonreligious student groups.

The free exercise clause presents a challenging situation for the Supreme Court, as individuals and groups assert the ability to violate the law in the name of their religion. The Court has sought a middle ground by proclaiming that the First Amendment protects all religious beliefs, but not necessarily all religious practices. While this distinction has a certain surface appeal, it still places the Court in the difficult position of determining which religious practices will be unprotected by the First Amendment. Obviously human sacrifice should not be protected by the freedom of religion, but what about other, less dramatic religious practices that technically violate the law, such as the ingestion of illegal substances as a religious practice? In Oregon v. Smith (1990), two Native-American drug counselors were fired for using peyote, an illegal drug, in their religious services. The Court ruled the First Amendment did not protect this practice, which was firmly rooted in the traditions of their religion. Congress responded with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), legislation designed to limit the Smith decision and to provide more protection for religious practices. In 1997 the Supreme Court had the final say in Boerne v. Flores, ruling RFRA unconstitutional and warning Congress that the Court was the ultimate arbiter of how the First Amendment should be interpreted.

Freedom of Expression

Freedom of expression is probably the most frequently used right that Americans possess, but this right cannot be used to say anything at any time and any place. The Supreme Court has established any number of restrictions on free speech. The clear and present danger test from the Schenck v. U.S. case (1919) restricted speech that creates a “clear and present danger” to public order. Fifty years later the Court provided considerably more protection to this sort of speech in Brandenburg v. Ohio, creating a test that required the government to prove that both the intention and the likelihood of the speech was imminent lawless action. Prior restraint of speech, sometimes known as censorship, has usually been ruled unconstitutional by the Court. In one of its most famous cases, New York Times v. U.S. (1971), the Supreme Court ruled The New York Times had the right to publish the Pentagon Papers, a comprehensive study of American involvement in the Vietnam War.

It is not only political speech that is covered by the First Amendment. The Court has also extended constitutional protection to commercial speech and symbolic speech. One of the Supreme Court’s most controversial decisions, Texas v. Johnson, involved symbolic speech. In this case the Court ruled that the state of Texas could not criminalize the burning of an American flag, even though most people regarded such an action as offensive. Certain types of speech have been ruled to be unprotected by the First Amendment, including obscenity, slander and child pornography. On the other hand, efforts by government to limit speech at public universities, hate speech and Internet pornography have been ruled unconstitutional by the Court as an infringement of protected First Amendment interests.

Freedom of the Press

The Framers regarded freedom of the press as an essential means of making our governmental system work properly. One of the major complications in applying freedom of the press is libel, the published or broadcast defamation of a person’s character. In a landmark decision the Supreme Court in New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) provided a great deal of protection to the media by ruling that public officials who bring suit against media companies for libel must prove actual malice on the part of the media. Only in the instances in which a public official can establish that the news organization published with knowledge of the falsity of its story, or acted in reckless disregard of the truth, can such a public official prevail. This greater burden of proof for public officials and figures allows for the criticism of public officials and discussions of differences of opinion without fear of lawsuits. Another important issue for free press is the conflict between the public’s right to know and the right of individuals to receive a fair trial. In Gannett Company v. De Pasquale (1979), the Supreme Court ruled that a judge could issue a gag order to protect a defendant’s right to a fair trial against excessive news publicity.

The Right to Assemble and to Petition the Government

The First Amendment protects the rights of unpopular groups to have their say. At the same time government has the responsibility to prevent rioting in the streets. The key issue is how to balance the right of individuals to put forth their controversial views with the necessity for public officials to maintain public order. One of the most interesting and poignant examples of this struggle came when members of the American Nazi Party wanted to hold a march in Skokie, Illinois, a town with a substantial Jewish population, many of whom were survivors of the death camps during World War II. The Supreme Court in Smith v. Collin (1978) upheld a lower court decision recognizing the First Amendment right of the Nazis to march. The federal court judges involved in this litigation believed the only thing worse than the ideas of the Nazis was putting the government in the position of being able to determine what its citizens can say and hear.

More Liberties under Scrutiny: Privacy Rights

The right to privacy is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. Rather, the Supreme Court stated in Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) that the right to privacy stems from “penumbras” in the First, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Ninth Amendments in the Bill of Rights. The Court has also come to see the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause as an important source for the right of privacy. One of the most controversial decisions in this area was Roe v. Wade (1973), in which the Supreme Court accepted the argument that laws against abortion violate a woman’s right to privacy by interfering with her decision whether to have a child. This decision created one of the most divisive public policy issues in America, even though later Court decisions placed restrictions on abortion rights. A second controversial application of the right to privacy is the right to die. If the right to privacy protects our ability to make decisions about the most intimate and personal details of our lives, should it protect the ultimate decision to end our lives? The New Jersey Supreme Court agreed with this principle in a 1976 case involving Karen Ann Quinlan. The United States Supreme Court also provided support for this idea in Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990). The Cruzan case has led to the creation of “living wills” and other documents to provide documentation of the patient’s intention not to be kept alive by extraordinary means. However, the Court has not been willing to extend constitutional protection to assisted suicide, leaving the question up to the individual states. A final area of controversy is the diminishing of privacy rights in the wake of 9/11, as government extends its power in order to make the nation safer from terrorist attacks.

The Great Balancing Act: The Rights of the Accused versus the Rights of Society

One of the most difficult areas of the Constitution involves the conflict between the necessity of government to protect its citizens from crime and the rights given to those accused of criminal offenses in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eight Amendments. Your text includes a complete listing of these rights. During the 1960’s the Supreme Court greatly expanded the rights of the accused. In 1963, Gideon v. Wainwright ensured that a poor defendant would be given an attorney paid for by the government. In 1966, Miranda v. Arizona required the police to inform individuals of their constitutional rights prior to custodial interrogation, although the Court has been willing in recent years to acknowledge some exceptions to this rule. In the case of Mapp v. Ohio (1961) the Supreme Court applied the exclusionary rule to every criminal court in the nation, ensuring that evidence obtained unconstitutionally would be inadmissible at trial. As was the case with the Miranda precedent, the Court has been willing to recognize some exceptions to the exclusionary rule, most notably the “good faith” exception.

The Death Penalty

The Eight Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. One of the most controversial questions of our time asks whether the death penalty violates this provision. It is doubtful that the Framers of the Constitution would have thought the death penalty to be cruel and unusual punishment. In fact the Fifth Amendment provides that the government may take the life of a citizen as long as it is done consistently with due process of law. However, in the 1972 case of Furman v. Georgia the Supreme Court ruled that the random and arbitrary manner in which the death penalty was being used throughout the nation violated the prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court declared existing death penalty statutes to be unconstitutional, but challenged states to restructure and rewrite their laws on when capital punishment was appropriate. Four years later the Court upheld the newly revised death penalty laws. Today the death penalty exists in 38 states, as shown in Figure 4-1. In 1996 Congress passed the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which sharply reduced the time for death-row appeals. Whether this represents a move toward justice and holding murderers accountable or a rush to judgment that may result in the execution of innocent people remains to be seen.

Key Terms

37

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

actual malice

civil liberties

clear and present danger

establishment clause

exclusionary rule

fighting words

free exercise clause

incorporation theory

libel

prior restraint

public figures

slander

symbolic speech

Writ of habeas corpus

37

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

Other Resources

A number of valuable supplements are available to students using the Schmidt, Shelley, and Bardes text. The full list of the supplements is in the preface to this study guide. Ask your instructor how to obtain these resources. One supplement is highlighted here, the INFOTRAC Online Library.

INFOTRAC EXERCISES

Log on to http://www.infotrac-college.com.

Enter your Pass code.

You can access the article by typing the exact phrase below.

“On Life, Liberty, and Law”