Which four amendments are known together as criminal due process rights? quizlet
|
Show Recommended textbook solutions Magruder's American Government1st EditionWilliam A. McClenaghan 989 solutions United States Government: Our Democracy1st EditionDonald A. Ritchie, Richard C. Remy 1,148 solutions
Magruder's American Government, California Edition1st EditionWilliam A. McClenaghan 1,426 solutions
Magruder's American Government1st EditionSavvas Learning Co 555 solutions The first ten amendments to the United Sates Constitution, collectively known as the Bill of Rights Remember, however, that the amendments are a limit only on actions of the government—they do not limit the behavior of private employers. This distinction is commonly misunderstood by many citizens. -Speech Not Protected By The First Amendment Not a type of unprotected speech:corporate speech Fighting Words Fighting words are a third class of unprotected speech. In Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, a man protesting the government called the city marshal a "damned racketeer" and a "damned Fascist." The city arrested him for violating a statute prohibiting the use of offensive, derisive, or annoying words toward another in a public place. The U.S. Supreme Court held: "The English language has a number of words and expressions which by general consent are 'fighting words' when said without a disarming smile.... Such words, as ordinary men know, are likely to cause a fight." The Court further held that "'damned racketeer' and 'damned Fascist' are epithets likely to provoke the average person to retaliation, and thereby cause a breach of the peace." Thus, the Court determined that the First Amendment did not protect the man's speech. Like other rights, First Amendment rights are not absolute. For example, a person does not have the right to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Nor does the First Amendment protect false statements about another that are injurious to that person's reputation. Due to the difficulty of determining the boundaries of individual rights, courts hear a large number of First Amendment cases. Video Unprotected Speech.The First Amendment right to free speech is not absolute. In the 1942 case Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, the U.S. Supreme Court held: Thus, for example, the First Amendment does not protect defamation, or speech that harms the reputation of another. Moreover, as you will learn in Chapter 6, courts may require an individual who uses such speech to compensate the person whose reputation was harmed by the speech. The First Amendment does not protect obscenity, either, although in many cases courts find it difficult to determine whether particular speech constitutes obscenity. In the 1973 case Miller v. California, the U.S. Supreme Court established a three-part standard to determine whether speech is obscene: SUMMARY Contains the establishment clause, which states that Congress may not make laws respecting an establishment of religion, and the free-exercise clause, which states that Congress may not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion. The establishment clause is set forth in the FIRST: Amendments to the U.S. Constitution -THE PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION: is not protected by the FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION -Freedom of the press: rights protected by the first amendment to the u.s. constitution -Political speech is given a high level of First Amendment protection compared to other types of speech The free-exercise clause states that government cannot make a law "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion. Although government must remain neutral in matters of religion, determining whether a government action advances religion or merely allows free exercise of religion is often difficult. Likewise, determining whether a government action establishes religion or simply avoids interference with free exercise of religion is also difficult. Issues concerning the establishment clause and the free-exercise clause often arise in workplace settings. In government workplaces, this conflict sometimes raises difficult issues. For example, in 1966, Tucker, an employee of the California Department of Education, insisted on signing office memos with his name and the letters "SOTLJC," an abbreviation for "Servant of the Lord Jesus Christ." In an attempt to avoid workplace disruptions and the appearance of government support for religion, Tucker's supervisor prohibited all displays of religious symbols in the workplace. The supervisor suspended Tucker for refusing to comply with the restrictions. When Tucker challenged the suspension on grounds that the rules interfered with his free exercise of religion, the appellate court agreed. In private workplaces, issues related to free exercise of religion most often arise under Title VII, the federal law prohibiting employment discrimination. We discuss this important legislation in detail in Chapter 24. GLOBAL Context Protects citizens from unreasonable search and seizure In order for a search to be legal, the court must first issue a warrant, particularly describing the place and/or the person to be searched. Further, the warrant must be based upon "probable cause," defined as the "substantial likelihood that incriminating evidence will be found when the search is conducted. "Ensures that government issues warrants only with "probable cause" Probable cause means a reasonable person would suspect that something illegal has happened or about to happen. Law enforcement officer would have to show evidence of what they think the probable cause is. and if the magistrate judge believe the evidence is truly probable cause then they can issue a warrant to allow the warrant officer to search or seize property The Supreme Court has ruled, however, that in certain circumstances, government officials do not need a search warrant. For example, when law enforcement officials believe it is likely that the items sought will be removed before they can obtain a warrant, they may conduct a search without a warrant. Law enforcement officials frequently conduct automobile searches without a warrant according to this rule. In most other cases, though, law enforcement officials must obtain a warrant before conducting a search. For example, an Ohio law required buyers of five or more beer kegs to provide the beer distributor with the address of the party where the kegs would be consumed. Additionally, the law required the buyers to sign a form allowing police and liquor agents to enter their property without a warrant to search the premises to enforce state liquor laws. In 2001, a college professor challenged the law on grounds that it infringed on citizens' Fourth Amendment rights. Before the court decided the case, Ohio repealed the law. Technological changes have raised interesting issues in the application of the Fourth Amendment. For example, because growing marijuana indoors requires heat lamps that use large amounts of electricity, when police found that a suspected marijuana grower had unusually high electric bills, they used an instrument that detects heat emissions to provide them with the evidence necessary to obtain a warrant to search his house physically. In determining whether using a thermal-imaging instrument on private property constituted an unlawful search, the Court asked whether using a thermal-imaging instruments is more like going through someone's garbage, which had been previously held not to violate the Fourth Amendment, or more like using a high-powered telescope to look through someone's window, which had been previously found to be a violation. In addition to protecting individuals and their homes, the Fourth Amendment also protects corporations and places of business. This protection generally applies in criminal cases, but Fourth Amendment issues also arise when government regulations authorize administrative agencies to conduct warrantless searches. Although administrative searches usually require search warrants, courts have established an exception to this rule: If an industry has a long history of pervasive regulation, a warrantless search is not unreasonable. In such industries, administrative agencies can use warrantless searches to ensure that firms uphold regulations. Summary of the Bill of Rights: The Fifth Amendment SUMMARY States that if government takes private property for public use, it must compensate the owner. The extent to which some government regulations constitute takings, however, generates much litigation. Includes a privilege against self-incrimination, although the provision does not apply to corporations. Only individual citizens and sole proprietorships may exercise this right. Guarantees individuals equal protection under the law. Courts use three standards of scrutiny in equal protection cases: (1) strict scrutiny, to analyze government actions that abridge fundamental rights or that include suspect classifications; (2) intermediate scrutiny, to analyze classifications based on gender or on legitimacy of children; (3) the rational-basis test, to analyze classifications involving other matters. Is the statue supported by a majority of U.S. citizens: is not a recognized test to determine statute violations by the first amendment fifth amendment: that the government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law? The Privilege against Self-Incrimination Although most provisions of the Fifth Amendment apply to corporations, corporations do not enjoy the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. Sole proprietors, however, are entitled to this protection. Thus, different businesses have different constitutional rights depending on their form of business organization. For example, in the 1988 U.S. Supreme Court case Braswell v. United States, the Court distinguished between the rights of corporate-record custodians and sole proprietors. Braswell was both the operator and the sole shareholder of his business. When a grand jury issued a subpoena requiring him to produce corporate books and records, Braswell argued that the subpoena violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The Court denied Braswell's claim, writing that "subpoenaed business records are not privileged, and as a custodian for the records, the act of producing the records is in a representative capacity, not a personal one, so the records must be produced." The Court held that the subpoena would have violated Braswell's privilege against self-incrimination if his business had been a sole proprietorship. The Fifth Amendment: contains the takings clause: -PROTECTION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY: IS included in the FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION -Accurate statement of the fifth amendment against self incrimination: Different business have different rights related to the privilege against self incrimination depending on their form of business organization -Fifth amendment set forth in the bill of rights prevents governments from trying citizens twice for the same crime -Ensures that government will not subject citizens to trial, except upon indictment by a grand jury The Fifth Amendment gives citizens the right not to testify against themselves also known as the (privilege against self-incrimination) It Prevents government from trying citizens twice for the same crime or (double jeopardy) Creates the right to due process and Provides that government cannot take private property for public use without just compensation -Which of the following is an accurate statement regarding the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution's due process clause: For business people and corporations, the Fifth Amendment's due process clause provides extensive protection -The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause: States that government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law -Types Of Due Process Guaranteed By The Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause: Procedural Due Process—Requires government to use fair procedures when taking life, liberty, or property procedural due process: requires the government to use fair procedures before depriving a person of his or her life, liberty, or corporation? Substantive Due Process—Ensures basic fairness of laws that may deprive life, liberty, or property. fundamental rights are most important to us. speech, religion, privacy vote travel marry -The Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Due process means we must have notice. cant take away our life by putting us in jail, or freedom by taking our freedom of speech or free practice of religion without notice. a notification requirement protects us from the criminal side of the law basic fairness of laws that may deprive an individual of life, liberty, or property To satisfy the substantive due process requirement, the government must have a proper purpose for enacting laws restricting the individual of those things Pursuant to the requirement of substantive due process, laws affecting fundamental rights must have a COMPELLING GOVERNMENT PURPOS The due process clause guarantees two types of due process: procedural and substantive. Procedural due process requires the government to use fair procedures when taking the life, liberty, or property of an individual or corporation. At a minimum, procedural due process entitles a person to notice of any legal action against her and to a hearing before an impartial tribunal. Originally, courts interpreted the due process clause as protecting an individual's right of procedural due process only in federal criminal proceedings. The subsequent passage of the Fourteenth Amendment extended the requirement of due process to criminal proceedings by state governments. Today, courts apply the due process clause to diverse situations, including the termination of welfare benefits, food stamps, or Social Security benefits; the suspension of a driver's license; the discharge of a public employee from his job; and the suspension of a student from school. The procedures that government must follow when taking an individual's life, liberty, or property vary according to the nature of the taking. Generally, more procedures are necessary as the magnitude of potential
deprivation increases. proclaims that although the Bill of Rights names certain rights, such naming does not remove other rights retained by citizens The Right to Privacy The Ninth Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Although this amendment does not expressly guarantee the right to privacy, courts have interpreted the Ninth Amendment, together with the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments, as providing individuals with a right to privacy. The Fourteenth Amendment also known as the equal protection clause, Prevents states from denying "the equal protection of the laws" to any citizen The EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE: combats discrimination because it applies whenever government treats individuals differently than other similarly situated individuals, usually through a classification scheme Combats discrimination, since it applies whenever government treats certain individuals differently than other "similarly-situated" individuals al protection clause, which prevents states from denying "the equal protection of the laws" to any citizen. This clause combats discrimination because it applies whenever government treats certain individuals differently than other similarly situated individuals, usually through a classification scheme. As with the due process clause, to determine whether a law violates the equal protection clause, courts use different standards based on the nature of the rights the classification affects. Three standards of scrutiny apply: strict scrutiny, intermediate scrutiny, and the rational-basis test. If a law prevents individuals from exercising a fundamental right, or if the law's classification scheme involves suspect classifications, the action will be subject to strict scrutiny. Suspect classifications include classifications based on race, national origin, and citizenship. Courts uphold suspect classifications only if they are necessary to promote a compelling state interest. In cases involving suspect classifications, courts do not begin their analysis with a presumption that the classification is constitutional, so few laws pass the strict-scrutiny standard. For example, in the 1954 case Brown v. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the classification scheme used to segregate public schools racially violated the equal protection clause. "Strict Scrutiny" Test: Applies to "suspect classifications" based on race, national origin, and/or citizenship that would prevent individuals from exercising a fundamental right (such classification allowed only if necessary to promote a "compelling state interest") -"Intermediate Scrutiny" Test: Applies to classifications based on gender or on the legitimacy of children (such classification allowed only if it is substantially related to an "important government objective") Several courts have held, however, that in some cases, remedying past discrimination against a group is a compelling state interest. Chapter 24 discusses this issue in detail. If the law's classification scheme is based on gender or on the legitimacy of children, courts use intermediate scrutiny. According to this standard, the law is constitutional only if it is substantially related to an important government objective. "Rational Basis" Test: Applies to all other matters (such classification allowed only if it advances a "legitimate government interest") The taxing power of the federal government is established in ____ of the U.S. Constitution. No government can function without a source of revenue. Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution gives the federal government the "Power to lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports, and Excises." The taxes laid by Congress, however, must be uniform across the states. In other words, the government cannot impose higher taxes on residents of one state than it imposes on those of another. Although tax collection allows the government to provide essential services, the government can also use taxes for other purposes. For example, to encourage the development of certain industries and discourage the development of others, the government can provide tax credits for firms entering favored industries. As long as the "motive of Congress and the effect of its legislative action are to secure revenue for the benefit of the general government," the credit is constitutional. The fact that it also has a regulatory impact does not affect the constitutionality of the credit. Article I, Section 8, also grants Congress spending power by authorizing it to "pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States." As with its power to tax, Congress can use its spending power to achieve social welfare objectives. For example, in South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court upheld a federal statute that grants federal funds for state highways to only those states in which 21 is the legal drinking age. Corporations engage in political: speech when they support a particular candidate for office. -Political speech is given a high level of First Amendment protection compared to other types of speech Political Speech.The First Amendment protections also apply to corporations. Courts do not, however, treat all corporate speech the same. Sometimes corporations engage in political speech; that is, they support political candidates or referenda. At one time, states restricted firms' political advertising because they feared that corporations, with their large assets, would drown out other voices. In the 1978 case First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, however, the U.S. Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of a Massachusetts law that prohibited certain corporations from spending money to influence voters on issues that did not materially affect the corporation. The Court held that the law was unconstitutional, stating, "The concept that the government may restrict speech of some elements of our society in order to enhance the relative voice of others is wholly foreign to the First Amendment." The Court ruled that the First Amendment protects corporate political speech to the same extent as ordinary citizens' political speech. Under the RATIONAL BASIS: TEST, courts ask whether there is any justifiable reason to believe that the classification scheme advances a legitimate government interest -To show that a law that does not affect fundamental rights satisfies the substantive due process requirement, the government must prove the law bears a RATIONAL RELATIONSHIP to a legitimate state interest Not all laws, however, affect fundamental rights. To show that a law that does not affect fundamental rights satisfies the substantive due process requirement, government must prove only that the law bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state interest. Courts uphold most government regulations according to this rational-basis test. For example, courts have upheld minimum-wage laws, rent control laws, banking regulations, environmental laws, and regulations prohibiting unfair trade practices according to the rational-basis test. Which amendments are known as due process rights amendments quizlet?The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution each contain a due process clause. Due process deals with the administration of justice and thus the due process clause acts as a safeguard from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property by the Government outside the sanction of law.
What does the 14th Amendment Section 4 mean?Amendment XIV, Section 4 allowed the federal and state governments to refuse to pay war debts of the Confederate army as well as any claims made by slave owners for their losses when slaves were freed. Lastly, Amendment XIV, Section 5 gives Congress the power to enforce all the provisions within the whole amendment.
Which constitutional amendment introduced the right of due process quizlet?Due Process Clause: The Fourteenth Amendment reads, in part, that no state shall "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This applies to the states and to local governments.
What did the 14th Amendment provide quizlet?The 14th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified on July 9, 1868, granted citizenship to "all persons born or naturalized in the United States," which included former slaves recently freed.
|
