Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman © Susan Holtz

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman

© Susan Holtz


Our history has shown us that insecurity threatens liberty. Yet, if our liberties are curtailed, we lose the values that we are struggling to defend.

The 9/11 Commission Report


What do you think about your rights in the Bill of Rights

1.I personally think about them.

2.I take them for granted.

3.I don’t know what they are.

(2010 national survey of high school seniors)




Civil liberties vs. civil rights

• Civil liberties = basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed

• Protections against the government• Either explicitly written down in the Bill of

Rights or interpreted from years of case law

• Civil rights = basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics


Important facts about your rights…

• Your rights are relative – not absolute• “Your rights and were someone else’s

nose begins.”• Your rights are more limited in school

• In loco parentis


Bill of Rights

• Colonists feared a tyrannical government• Federalists agreed to amend the Constitution

to include the Bill of Rights• B of R did not protect the people from state

governments• 1868 14th amendment – interpreted to

impose, provision-by-provision, most of the constitutional protections

LO 4.1

To Learning ObjectivesCopyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman


The Bill of Rights

• Incorporation of the 14th amendment• Gitlow v. New York (1925)• Not all the rights and been applied to state

governments at this time• Second Amendment in 2010• Eighth amendment not fully incorporated• Fifth Amendment not fully incorporated

LO 4.1



Freedom of religion

• Establishment clause – “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”

• Free exercise clause – “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”


• Freedom of Religion Court Cases


Reynolds v. United States (1879)

• George Reynolds was convicted in a District Court for bigamy (having multiple wives).


The Court’s decision

• The Court ruled that the First Amendment did not deprive Congress of the power to reach actions which were in violation of social duties subversive of good order.

• Polygamy had long been considered “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.

• States had reaffirmed laws against plural marriage not long after the adoption of the First Amendment.


U.S. v. Ballard (1944)

Guy Ballard and his wife asserted that Saint Germaine had chosen him as a “divine messenger.” According to Ballard, to carry out the saint’s wishes, he founded the “I Am” religion in California. As the spiritual leader of I Am, Ballard claimed supernatural healing powers and told his followers that he needed money to continue his work. Ballard used the postal service to collect funds, making a good deal of money along the way.

Asserting the I Am sect was not a religion; the federal government accused Ballard of using the mail to defraud people.



Justice Douglas had this to say: The religious viewsespoused by Ballard might seem incredible, if notpreposterous, to most people. But if those doctrines aresubject to trial before a jury charged with finding their truthor falsity, then the same can be done with the religiousbeliefs of any sect. When triers of fact undertake that task,they enter a forbidden domain. Under the Ballard approach, the proper test of aconstitutionally protected religious belief is not the truth ofits doctrine but the sincerity with which it is held.


United States v. Seeger United States v. Seeger (1965)(1965)

Daniel Seeger asserted that, although he opposed participation in the Vietnam War on the basis of religious belief, “he preferred to leave the question as to his belief in a Supreme Being open ‘rather than answer yes or no.’”

Specifically excluded from exemption are “essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views, or merely a personal code”



• The test of belief “in relation to a supreme being” is whether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to the orthodox belief in God.


Lemon v. Kurtzman (1971)

Alton Lemon brought suit against David Kurtzman, State Superintendent of Schools. Lemon wanted the Trial Court unconstitutional a Pennsylvania law that authorized Kurtzman to “purchase” secular educational services for non-public schools.

Under this law, the Superintendent would use state taxes levied on cigarettes to reimburse non-public schools for expenses incurred for teachers’ salaries, textbooks, and instructional materials. The state authorized such funding with certain restrictions. It would pay for secular expenses only--that is, secular books and teachers’ salaries for the same courses taught in public schools.



The Court struck down the policy, creating the Lemon Test.

1. Secular purpose

2. Neither aids or inhibits religion

3. Government and religion are not EXCESSIVELY entangled


Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972)

• Yoder was a member of the Amish religion and the father of two children, ages 14 and 15. He was convicted of violating Wisconsin’s mandatory school attendance law by declining to send his children to public or private school through the age of 16.



• The Court held Yoder’s conviction invalid under the First Amendment. Justice Burger was careful in noting the outcome of the case relied heavily upon the facts, referencing the sincerity of Yoder’s religious beliefs, and the long-standing of the Amish faith.


Edwards v. Aguillard (1987)

• Louisiana enacted the Balanced Treatment for Creation-Science and Evolution-Science in Public School Instruction Act in 1981. This law prohibited schools from teaching evolution principles unless theories of creationism also were taught. The state argues that evolutionary theory is a religious tenet. If evolution is taught so should creationism, which has its origin in a literal reading of Genesis.



• The Court found that the law lacked a secular purpose; rather its purpose was to “endorse a particular religious view.”


Lynch v. Donnelly (1984)

• For more than forty years, the city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island erected a display in a park owned by a nonprofit organization. The display included a Santa Clause house, reindeer, a Christmas tree, a clown, colored lights, a Season’s Greetings banner, and a manger with the Christ Child, Mary and Joseph, angels, animals, and so forth. The city spent $1,365 to set up and take down the display each year.

• The ACLU brought suit against the city, believing the annual expenditures to violate the Establishment Clause.


• The court found it was not a “impermissible” breach of the Establishment Clause.

• Justice Brennan wrote “an unbroken history of official acknowledgement by all three branches of government of the role of religion in American life: executive orders proclaiming Christmas and Thanksgiving as national holidays, ‘In God We Trust’ on currency, etc.”


Goldman v. Weinberger (1986)

S. Simcha Goldman was an Orthodox Jew, an ordained rabbi, and a Captain in the Air Force. He was stationed at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California, as a clinical psychologist in the base hospital. From the time Goldman began his service at the base, he wore a yarmulke while in and out of uniform. Goldman did so because his religion requires its’ male adherents to keep their head covered at all times.

After a superior told him that the yarmulke violated Air Force dress code, Goldman brought suit against the Secretary of Defense. Goldman argued that the regulation violated his First Amendment exercise rights.



• Writing for the majority, Justice Rehnquist agreed with the government and ruled against Goldman. He wrote “The military is by necessity a specialized society separate from civilian society. The military must insist upon respect for duty and discipline.”


Bowen v. Roy (1986)

The plaintiffs were Native American parents who had applied for financial assistance under a U.S. government welfare program. One of the requirements to receive benefits under this program was that the applicants provide Social Security Number for their children and themselves. The plaintiffs refused to do so, as they claimed this would violate their religious beliefs; their belief was that using a technologically-derived number to identify her would diminish her spiritual uniqueness.



• The Supreme Court ruled that, the government's use of a Social Security number for the child did not impair her family's freedom to "believe, express and exercise" their religion, the plaintiffs' claim was without merit.


Oregon v. Smith (1990)

• The disputed issue in Smith arose when two members of the Native American church, Alfred Smith and Galen Black, were fired from their jobs for ingesting peyote at a religious ceremony. Smith and Black applied for unemployment benefits but were turned down by the state, which found them ineligible because they were fired for “misconduct”; under state law, workers discharged for that reason could not obtain benefits.



• The Court held that the Free Exercise Clause does not relieve an individual from the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law commands behavior inconsistent with a person’s religious beliefs.


Lee v. Weisman (1992)

• A public school principal in Providence, Rhode Island, invited a rabbi to deliver prayer at a middle school graduation. According to the school district the prayer was voluntary and nonsectarian .



• The action of the principal in inviting a member of the clergy to deliver a prayer at graduation constituted state promotion of religion.


Zobrest v. Catilina Foothills School District (1993)

The parents of James Zobrest, a deaf student, applied to a public school district for an interpreter to accompany their son to classes at a Roman Catholic high school.



• The provision of an interpreter to be a benefit neutrally applied whether parents sent their children to public or private schools.


Church of Santeria v. City of Hialeah (1993)• Petitioner church and its congregants practice the

Santeria religion, which employs animal sacrifice as one of its principal forms of devotion. The animals are killed by cutting their carotid arteries and are cooked and eaten following all Santeria rituals except healing and death rites. After one such ritual members of the church were arrested and charged with cruelty to animals.



• Law was too specifically tailored to target the Church of Santeria.


Santa Fe School District v. Doe (2000)

• Two sets of students and parents brought suit against the Santa Fe School District’s policy to have a student led, student initiated prayer over the public address system.



• One of the purposes of the prayer was to solemize the event, suggesting that the school was endorsing religion.


Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (2002)

In the 1990s, the Cleveland City School District faced a crisis. The district served some 75,000 children, most of them from low income, minority families. Evaluation studies found it to be one of the worst performing school districts in the nation. In order to improve performance, the state enacted its’ Pilot Project Scholarship Program. The program allowed parents to choose among the following alternatives:

1. To continue in Cleveland public schools as before;2. To receive a scholarship up to $2,250 per year to attend an accredited, private, nonreligious school;3. To receive a scholarship up to $2,250 per year to attend an accredited, private, religious school;4. To remain in the Cleveland public schools and receive up to $500 in tutorial assistance; or5. To attend a public school outside the district. Other public school districts accepting Cleveland students would receive $2,250 from the Cleveland district as well as normal state funding for each student enrolled



• The Court found that the Cleveland Pilot Program does not offend the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Justice Rehnquist wrote “There’s no dispute that the Program challenged here was enacted for the valid, secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program has the ‘forbidden effect’ of advancing or inhibiting religion.”


McCreary County v. American Civil Liberties Union (2005)

• Two Kentucky counties exhibited the Ten Commandments in their courthouses. After, challenges, they subsequently twice posted two new displays in which the Ten Commandments were displayed along with other documents.



• A cited secular purpose has to be genuine, not a sham, and not secondary to a religious objective.


• Are these activities allowed are the establishment clause?



What about the Pledge of Allegiance?


What about “under God” in the pledge?




Establishment clause

• Aid to church-related schools – in general aid is prohibited • three-part lemon test is applied• Interpretation of the lemon test has varied

over the years• In recent years the court has permitted a

they goes to all schools• School vouchers – court has allowed it



• Engel v. Vitale – officially sponsored prayer in schools violates the establishment clause

• A moment of silence is permitted as long as it is secular

• Cannot use a schools public address system to prayer sporting events



• Supreme Court has split on the display of the Ten Commandments

• Has allowed it as part of a larger display• Prohibited as an overly religious display

in a Kentucky courthouse



• No state can ban the teaching of evolution or require the teaching of creationism

• Some schools teach the theory of “intelligent design” but the court has not ruled on this yet



• Public schools and colleges cannot place restrictions on religious organizations that are not also placed on nonreligious ones.

• Rosenberger v. University of Virginia


So what is okay under the establishment clause?

• Study of religion in a secular way• Public displays of religious symbols that

include all religions, non-religious symbols like a Christmas tree, historical displays

• Private schools can do as they please as long as they do not take public funds


Free exercise clause

• You can believe what you want• You cannot always do what you want• Cannot act in a way that endangers

public health or safety


Free exercise clause

• The Religious Freedom Restoration Act , passed in 1993 required all levels of government to “accommodate religious conduct” unless there was a compelling reason to do otherwise

• The Supreme Court ruled the act unconstitutional

• Under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 schools can be denied federal funds if they ban constitutionally acceptable expressions of religion


Freedom of expression

• First amendment protects most speech, but some speech either falls outside the protection of the 1st amendment or has limited protection


Schenck v. US (1919)

• To encourage support of WWI Congress passed the Espionage Act.

• Schenck, the general secretary of the Socialist Party, sent out leaflets to men who had been drafted during WWI. He was arrested for violating the Act.



• Clear and present danger test


New York Times v. Sullivan (1964)

• Sullivan, a county commissioner of Montgomery County, Alabama, brought a civil suit for libel against the New York Times for a full page advertisement in the newspaper.



• Higher standard for public officials.• Actual malice


Tinker v. Des Moines

• Three students in Des Moines, Iowa, were involved in planning a protest against U.S. involvement in Vietnam. They chose to wear black armbands to indicate their support for a truth.

• They were suspended for their protest.


The court’s decision

• Symbolic speech is protected.

• No disruption to school


New York Times v. U.S. (1971)

• The U.S. went to District Court to enjoin publications of the Pentagon Papers by the New York Times and the Washington Post. Daniel Ellsberg, a Pentagon employee who had grown disaffected with the war in Vietnam, had turned those documents, which detailed the history of U.S. involvement in Vietnam, over to newspapers.

• The Supreme Court decided to hear the case.



• The Court ruled that the judiciary cannot prevent the publication. “The Bill of Rights changed the original Constitution into a new charter under which no branch of government could abridge the freedom of press, speech, religion, and assembly…Both the history and language of the First Amendment support the view that the press must be left free to publish news, whatever the source, without censorship, injunction, or prior restraint…


Buckley v. Veleo (1976)

• Congress passed in 1971, and in 1974 amended, the Federal Election Campaign Act. This act broadly attempted to limit individual political contributions to $1,000 to any single candidate with an overall annual limitation of $35,000 by any single contributor. It further required reporting and disclosure of contributions and expenditures above certain threshold levels, established a system of public funding of presidential campaigns, and created a Federal Election Commission.



• Limitations on campaign restrictions are constitutional.

• Limitations on a candidates spending on his own campaign is unconstitutional.


Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)• In May of 1983 the principal of Hazelwood East High

ordered the deletion of two pages from Spectrum, a student newspaper. The two pages included an article on students’ experiences with pregnancy and another story discussing the impact of divorce on students at the school.



• The First Amendment rights of students in public schools are not the same as the rights of students in other settings.


Texas v. Johnson (1989)

• After he publicly burned a U.S. flag at a protest at the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, the state sentenced Johnson to jail and fined him under a Texas law prohibiting the desecration of a venerated object.



• “expressive conduct”

• Symbolic speech is protected


Morse v. Frederick (2007)

• “BONG HITS FOR JESUS”


The Court’s deicision

• Have First Amendment rights in school but they are not the same as adults.

• School authorities have to right to limit speech that could be harmful to students.


Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010)• The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002

prohibited corporations and unions from making independent expenditures for electioneering communications within thirty days of a primary election. Citizens United challenged the law after becoming concerned that a negative documentary on Hillary Clinton, which it hoped to air on cable television, would be illegal. The case was re-argued after the court specifically asked parties to address whether it should overrule precedents.



• Justice Kennedy's majority opinion found that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act prohibition of all independent expenditures by corporations and unions violated the First Amendment's protection of free speech. The majority wrote, "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."



• No prior restraint – if a publication violates a law

• Symbolic speech – flag burning• Commercial speech – restrictions must

meet a substantial government interest



• Permitted restrictions • Periods of perceived foreign threats • Clear and Present Danger – speech that

causes harm to the public.



• Modifications to the Clear and Present Danger Test• Bad tendency rule - allows govt. to infringe

upon speech as long as it is inciting an illegal action

• Grave and probable danger test• Incitement test – danger must be

immediate


Unprotected speech: Obscenity • Definitional Problems: current def. from

1973• “I know it when I see it” ~ Justice Stewart

1. Average person finds it violates community standards

2. The work appeals to a prurient interest in sex

3. The work shows patently offensive sexual conduct

4. The work lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific merit


Obscenity

• Protecting children• Porn on the internet – Congress has

made many attempts to shield minors from pornography, most have been found unconstitutional

• Grants to local schools and libraries


Obscenity

• Should “virtual” pornography be banned?

• Computer-generated images• Right now they are not


Unprotected speech: slander

• Slander – statements that are false and harm the reputation of another


Other forms of unprotected speech

• Campus speech • Student fees can be used to fund groups

you do not agree with • Campus speech and behavior codes

• Hate speech on the internet – US one of the few countries that does not restrict


Freedom of the press

• Libel – a written defamation of character. • Actual malice – done knowingly or with

reckless disregard for the truth • Public figures must meet a higher standard of

proof than ordinary people. • Free press v. fair trial = gag order • Films, radio, and TV – broadcast radio and

TV are not afforded the same protections


Right to Privacy

• Abortion • Major right-to-privacy issue


Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)

• This case involved the constitutionality of Connecticut’s birth control law. The statute provided that “any person who uses any drug, medical article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception” was to be subject to a fine, imprisonment, or both. The statute further specified that a person who assisted another in committing any offense could be prosecuted and punished as if he were the principal offender. Estelle Griswold, executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, was convicted of being an accessory.



• Right to privacy• Stemming from

• First Amendment • Third Amendment • Fourth Amendment • Ninth Amendment – certain rights, shall not be

construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

• Fourteenth Amendment


Roe v. Wade (1973)

• Jane Roe (a pseudonym) was an unmarried pregnant woman who brought suit against District Attorney Wade of Dallas County, Texas. Roe’s suit challenged a Texas statute prohibiting abortions except when, in a doctor’s judgment, abortion would be necessary to save the life of the mother.



• Reaffirmed the right to privacy • Fetus not protected by the 14th

Amendment until after the first trimester.


LO 4.7



Lawrence v. Texas (2003)

• Responding to a report of a weapons disturbance, Houston police legally entered Lawrence’s apartment and discovered he and another man engaged in an intimate sexual act. Both were arrested and convicted under Texas law defining sexual intercourse between individuals of the same sex as deviate.



• Kennedy wrote that liberty is designed to protect individuals against undue government intrusion. Such liberty has been related to privacy interests going back to 1923 in Meyer v. Nebraska.


Gonzales v. Carhart (2007)

• Congressional law prohibiting “partial birth abortion”


Privacy rights and the “right to die”

• Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1997)

• A patient’s life support could be withdrawn at the request of a family member if there is “clear and convincing evidence” that a patient did not want the treatment

• Living wills


“Right to die”

• What if there is no living will?• The spouse decides

• Terri Schiavo


Physician-assisted suicide

• Supreme Court has said the Constitution does not include the right to commit suicide

• Decision has left much leeway • Oregon and Washington both have very

narrowly tailored laws.


Privacy rights vs. security

• USA Patriot Act – eased restrictions on investigating, surveillance, and detention of terrorist suspects.



USA Patriot Act

1. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third

parties.2. It expands the government's ability to search private

property without notice to the owner.

3. the FBI can secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without proving probable cause

4. Allows the FBI to wiretap and follow electronic communications.


USA Patriot Act

• Civil liberty concerns – some fear the expanded powers of investigation might be used to silence government critics or to threaten individuals and groups who oppose government policies

• Many of the provisions of the act were renewed in May of 2011


USA Patriot Act

• The War on Terrorism – Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) provided detainees the right to challenge their detention before a judge and Boumediene v. Bush (2008) provided foreign terrorism suspects the right to challenge their detention in U.S. courts.

LO 4.6

To Learning Objectives



Rights of the accused vs. the rights of society • The great balancing

act!• Some believe the

rights of the accused are protected more than the rights of society and of victims

• Err on the side of caution


Copyright © 2009 Cengage Learning 107

Rights of the Accused

• Fourth Amendment• No unreasonable or unwarranted search or

seizure• No arrest except on probable cause

• Fifth Amendment• No coerced confessions• No compulsory self-incrimination



Rights of the Accused (cont.)

• Sixth Amendment• Legal counsel• Informed of charges• Speedy and public jury trial• Impartial jury by one’s peers

• Eighth Amendment• Reasonable bail• No cruel or unusual punishment


Defendants’ Rights

• Interpreting Defendants’ Rights• Criminal Justice personnel are limited by

the Bill of Rights • Courts continually rule on what is

constitutional and what is not.

LO 4.6



Court Cases


Criminal Law

• Arrest • Arrest warrant• No warrant – must have probable cause• May be based on much less evidence than is

necessary to prove a person is guilty at trial• Has to be more than suspicion to arrest

• Suspicion is okay to search but not to arrest

• Police can use as much force as reasonably necessary to make an arrest


• What to do if arrested• Don’t struggle or argue

• If you believe there has been a mistake – resisting arrest and assaulting an officer are separate crimes you can be charged with

• Otherwise, keep quiet until you’ve spoken to a lawyer• Don’t discuss your case with anyone and don’t sign a

statement• You may be searched, photographed, and fingerprinted• Your property may be taken ask for a receipt • As soon as possible call a family member or friend

• Tell them where you are, what you’ve been charged with, and what your bail or bond is

Criminal Law


Criminal Law: Procedure

• Fourth amendment• The law of search and seizure• Katz v. US

• A search is any governmental intrusion into something in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy

• Protects houses, yards, garages, apartments, diaries, briefcases

• Generally the police need a search warrant except in some situations



• Fourth amendment exceptions• Plain view• Stop and frisk – only requires “suspicion”• Consent• Hot pursuit• Emergency situations – bomb threat, smelling smoke, hearing

screams• Searches incident to lawful arrest• Boarder and airport searches• Vehicle exception – POLICE CAN SEARCH YOUR CAR OR

THE CAR YOU ARE DRIVING • Once and individual is arrested it is up to the court to decide if

the evidence was obtained illegally• Exclusionary rule – evidence obtained illegally cannot be

used at trial



• Saying no to the police• Make sure you say NO clearly – sometimes cops

will ask questions in deliberately confusing ways to get you to consent• Remain calm and do nothing to enrage the officer• Any animating behavior could be used as probable cause

that you are hiding something

• What about a raided party?• Police can pat you down for weapons, but you do not need

to empty your pockets• Remember, remain calm and comply if it looks like things

will get out-of-control if you don’t • You can always challenge the search later in court!



• Unable to see over Michelle’s 10-foot-high fence, police hire a plane and fly over the house at 1,000 feet and see marijuana plants growing in the backyard.


Criminal Law: Criminal Procedure

• A boarder patrol agent boards a bus in Texas. As she walks down the aisle, she squeezes the luggage that passengers have stored above their seats. When she squeezes Sydnie’s bag, she feels a suspicious “brick-like” object, which she believes to be a “brick” of methamphetamine.



• Todd is stopped at a DUI checkpoint and questioned. While questioning him a police officer notices a bullet on the front seat. The officer takes Todd’s keys and searches the rest of the car and finds nothing. He then opens Todd’s trunk, where he finds several brown paper bags filled with white powder. Todd is arrested and later at the station the car is searched again. The police then find $3,200 in cash.



• Suspecting Dani of growing marijuana in her house, federal agents scanned the house with a thermal imager to see whether it was emitting abnormal amounts of heat consistent with lamps used for growing marijuana.



• Police stop Chase for a traffic violation. During the stop, an officer walks a drug sniffing dog around the car, and the dog “alerts” the officer to drugs in the trunk.



• Ali is mad at her roommate Tiffini. She went to the police and offered to show them where Tiffini was hiding stolen CD’s they used for their dance group “Suburban Flavor.” The police accompany Idyghia to a garage they both shared and discovered 50 stoled CD’s.



• Nolan posts “No Trespassing” signs around his land and locks the gate to his property. Police go onto a highly secluded part of his land about a mile from his house and find marijuana.


• Investigating a shooting, police legally enter an apartment looking for weapons and the shooter. While inside, an officer spots a high-priced stereo that seems out of place in the rundown apartment. The officer picks it up, jots down the serial number, puts it down, calls headquarters, and finds out the stereo is stolen .


Criminal Law: Criminal Procedure

• The FBI listens to Clay’s conversation by attaching an electronic eavesdropping device to the outside of the public telephone booth he uses everyday at 11:00 am.


• Police install a device at the phone company office that keeps track of the numbers that Victoria dials from her home phone.


• Suspecting drug dealing, police have the trash collector turn over Kyle’s trash to them instead of throwing it in the trash truck.


The death penalty

• “cruel and unusual punishment”• 1970’s many states death penalty policies were found

unconstitutional – inconsistent and arbitrary • Today 38 states and the federal government allow the

death penalty • 1994=80% favored • 2010= polls indicate between 50% and 60% • Since 1973 over one hundred people found to be

wrongfully convicted




The death penalty

• 3 drug cocktail supposedly causes extreme pain

• Court has upheld its continued use in 2008


The death penalty

• 1996 Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act

• Limits appeals from death row convicts • Shortened the time average time period on

death row from 10-12 years to 6-8 years• Many are concerned that the shortened

appeals process increases the possibility that innocent persons will be put to death


Court cases


Right to bare arms

• Many communities have passed restrictions on owning and carrying handguns.• Laws have mandated background checks

for gun buyers and limited the sale of certain types of weapons altogether.

• Laws have required that guns be stored in a fashion to prevent their theft or children from accessing and firing them.


Court cases


Right to Bear Arms

• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)• Right to possess a firearm for self-defense

within the home.• Requiring firearm in a home to be

disassembled or bound by trigger lock is unconstitutional.

• McDonald v. Chicago (2010)• Extended 2nd Amendment’s limits on

restricting right to bear arms to state and local laws.

LO 4.5


Documents

Copyright © 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Longman © Susan Holtz