Docstoc

PowerPoint Presentation - social studies

Document Sample
PowerPoint Presentation - social studies Powered By Docstoc
					  Civil Rights and
     Freedoms
   How due process protections
related to the 4th, 5th , 6th and 14th
     Amendments effected the
 outcomes of several landmark US
       Supreme Court cases

                          Michael Quinones, NBCT
                          www.socialstudiesguy.com
 APK: Activation of Prior Knowledge
___________________________________________________
      Write at least 2-3 sentences describing a time when…
___________________________________________________
your rights/freedoms were taken away by a school, police or other
___________________________________________________
                        government agency
___________________________________________________
                             [Explain]
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
                 Question of the Day
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
 How have U.S. Supreme Court rulings
___________________________________________________
 balanced the rights and freedoms of the
___________________________________________________
 individual with the need to maintain
___________________________________________________
 order?
___________________________________________________
___________________________________________________
                            Understanding Words
                       -Read each of the sentences on the left and right.
                      -Decide what each underlined word means.
                      -Write the underlined word in a sentence of your own.

Even though the tongue was burned it               The hungry wolf seized the small
could discriminate between Pepsi and               rabbit by the throat then fled into
Diet Pepsi.                                        the woods.

                                                   Janet had not made payments on
With all of her prom date offers                   her car as she had agreed so the
Tamika, and the fact she is tall, decided          bank seized the vehicle parked at
to discriminate against boys who were              her house.
short.




Bob was blamed for breaking Mom’s                  Mark sought the counsel of his
fancy lamp but decided to incriminate              grandfather because he was
                                                   unsure what to do.
Steve also when he spoke to Dad.

                                                   After Margaret’s arrest she
Nobody admitted to eating the                      believed she had the right to legal
                                                   counsel to defend her.
chocolate pudding but the empty dish
with brown residue in Sal’s room was
very incriminating proof against him.
          Charting Constitutional Issues, Grounds and Bases
  You have been given a copy of this sheet with descriptions of clauses in the U.S. Constitution that are part of the
        plaintiff’s argument and/or part of the basis/grounds of the Supreme Court’s opinion in their rulings.
   These clauses are cut out and printed on enlarged pieces of paper in the front of the room. As you learn about
    these Landmark cases and the rulings of the Court come to the front of the room and place the Constitutional
       clause you believe goes under the appropriate place [the Plaintiff’s Constitutional argument and/or the
                                       Constitutional Issues before the Court].


Name of the Case                Plaintiff’s Constitutional Argument or reason      Constitutional Grounds for Supreme
                                for appealing to High Court                        Court’s Opinion
 1st Amendment                        4th Amendment                     5th Amendment
                                     Search and Seizure
Congress shall make no law….         The Right of the people to be       Self-Incrimination
Prohibiting the exercise of          secure in their persons….against
Free speech….                        unreasonable searches and          No person shall be compelled in
                                     seizures….no warrants shall        in any criminal case to be a
                                     issue…[without] probable           witness against himself.
                                     cause…
6th Amendment                         8th Amendment                     14th Amendment Equal
Right to a lawyer                    No…Cruel and unusual               Protection Clause
                                     punishment inflicted….             No state shall deprive
 In all criminal prosecutions, the                                      citizens from Equal
accused shall…have the …right                                           Protection of the laws.
to have the assistance of

counsel
                                      1st Amendment
                                          Establishment
                                             Clause
                                     Congress shall make no law
                                     respecting an establishment of
                                     religion…
                     Gideon v Wainwright [1963]:
                      The Homeless Drifter Case

Facts of the Case:                         Issues before Supreme Court:
                                              Was Gideon’s conviction in state
In 1961 a homeless, drifter named             court valid because he did not
    Clarence
                                              have a lawyer to defend him?
 Gideon was arrested on charges of petty
theft [he stole money from a cigarette
                                              Did Gideon have the right to a
machine].                                     lawyer paid for by the
                                              government?
He was indigent [poor] to afford a
lawyer and wanted a free lawyer paid for   Ruling by the Supreme Court:
with tax money.
                                           Gideon’s right to legal counsel/lawyer were
His request was denied so he defended      violated.
himself.

Most accounts say he was smart and          Gideon’s right to Equal Protection under the
performed reasonably well in court for a   law were violated because all accused
poorly educated person.                    persons [rich or poor] have a right to a
                                           lawyer.
However, he was not a trained lawyer and
was convicted [found guilty] in Florida
   state                                   Gideon was given a new trial and found not
court and sentenced to 5 years prison.     guilty.


                                           From then on poor accused person have
                                           been given public defenders [free lawyers].
                           Furman v Georgia [1972]:
                          The Tough on Burglars Case
Facts of the Case:                          Issues before Supreme Court:

A person awoke in the middle of             Was the murder conviction and death
the night to find William Furman            sentence fair because the “murder”
robbing his home.                           may not have been intentional?

Furman gave two different versions          Was this an excessive punishment
of what happened next during police         and appropriate sentence for the type
questioning.                                of crime?

[A] He told the police he fired
his weapon “blindly while I ran             Ruling by the Supreme Court:
away.”
[B] In court he admitted to tripping        Death sentences were too arbitrary
                                            [meaning it applied to too many
while fleeing and the gun went off
                                            cases].
accidentally.
                                            The Court’s opinion was that it was
He was found guilty of murder               too cruel and unusual of punishment.
because was committing another crime
at the same time [theft].                   The Court also ruled that his life was
                                            being deprived without due process of
He was sentenced to die by execution.       law


The case was lumped together with two       The Court was split 5-4 in this case
other similar cases where people received
a death sentence for rape.
                         Gregg v Georgia [1976]:
                          “It’s Not Cruel Case”
Facts of the Case:                         Issues before Supreme Court:

Troy Leon Gregg was found guilty of        Was the decision in the Furman case still
murdering a hitchhiker in a Georgia        valid?
state court.
                                           Were these cases different than the
He had a long and violent criminal         Furman case?
record.
                                           Was the punishment here cruel and
He was eventually sentenced to death.      usual?

He along with 4 other men from different   Ruling by the Supreme Court:
states convicted of similar crimes
appealed their cases to the Supreme        The opinion of the Court was that
Court based on the Furman precedent.
                                           state legislatures, after the Furman
                                           decision, had changed the requirements
                                           for death sentences [offenders had to
                                           have long records of violence].

                                           The sentences were not excessive
                                           because they were for repeat offenders.
               Regents of the University of California v Bakke:
                                 “The Med School Quota Case”
Facts of the Case:
                                                Issues before Supreme Court:
Allan Bakke believed he had been
discriminated against, because he was           Were racial quotas a fair method of
white, after he applied to medical
                                                preventing racism in college entrance?
school and was rejected.

The medical school in California he             Were racial quotas preventing everyone
applied to had different programs to get        from equal treatment?
in.

One for “disadvantaged” and one for
“regular” students.

After being rejected twice and learning
                                                Ruling by the Supreme Court:
non-white students with lower scores
than he were admitted he sued.                  Race could only be one factor used to

California State Courts later ordered Bakke     consider whether to allow a student
admitted because the medical school             into a school.
illegally created quotas [slots specially set
aside] for non-whites which was considered
discrimination.
                                                If it was the sole or major reason it
                                                was in violation of equal protection
The Regents of the University of California
appealed the decision to the High Court.
                                                under the law.
                                  New Jersey v T.L.O.
                                  “The Teen Drug Case”
Facts of the Case:                              Issues before Supreme Court:

Two teenage girls were caught smoking           Given the circumstances was the
in a girls’ school bathroom.                    search reasonable?

One girl who denied smoking, Tracy Lois         Did the vice principal have a good
Odom had her purse searched by a vice           Reason to search T.L.O.’s purse?
principal.

Marijuana, a pipe, money and plastic bags       Ruling by the Supreme Court:
were found in the purse [along with a list of   The Court ruled the search reasonable
“customers”].
                                                because of doubt created by one student
The girl was suspended, arrested and            admitting to smoking and the other denying
charged with possession with intent to sell.    it. To maintain order and prevent rules from

She was sentenced to one year probation         being violated he had probable cause to
which she appealed.                             search the bag with drugs in plain view.
                                                According to the Court the search was
The case went back and forth in the courts
and New Jersey appealed the U.S. Court of       valid and the drugs were legal to use as
Appeals’ decision.                              evidence. This ruling established that school
                                                officials only needed reasonable suspicion
                                                To search students.
     Tinker v Des Moines Independent School District:
                   “The Peace Sign Armband Case”

Facts of the Case:                    Issues before Supreme Court:

Two Des Moines, Iowa high school      Was the behavior of the Tinkers
students wanted to protest [“speak    disruptive to the school?
out” against] the Vietnam War.
                                      Were the armbands an acceptable
They chose to wear black arm          and protected from of free
bands to freely express their         expression?
disapproval for dead American
soldiers.                             Is expression a form of “speech?”

Their school told them to remove
the armbands because it was           Ruling by the Supreme Court:
disruptive.
                                      The opinion of the Court was that

They refused and were suspended.      the behavior was not disruptive.
                                      Non-verbal, peaceful expression in
The case was eventually appealed to
                                      school is a protected form of speech.
the High Court.
                           Hazelwood v Kuhlmeier:
                 “The Limited Written School Speech Case”

Facts of the Case:                            Issues before Supreme Court:

Students working on articles for a project    Did the writers have a right to publish
at Hazelwood H.S. in Missouri wanted to       private information in a semi-public way
publish some articles about “private”         in school?
subjects.
                                              Did the principal have a right to stop
Some of the subjects were teen                what he thought was disruptive
pregnancies and divorced parents.             behavior?

The writers believed that since the names
were changed to fake names it was okay.       Ruling by the Supreme Court:
                                              The opinion of the Court was that
The principal did not allow the articles to
                                              because the writing was not in a
be published because the identities were      completely public paper the school was
not hidden enough [it was too obvious].       allowed to restrict free expression in the
                                              student newspaper.
The writers sued and were eventually
granted Certiorari.
                                 Engel v Vitale:
                    “The Public School Prayer Case”
      Facts of the Case:            Issues before Supreme Court:

Many families in New Hyde Park, New York      Was the prayer a violation of the
objected to a school prayer that opened       principle of separation of church and state?
school each day.
                                              Can a government school legally expose
Even though the prayer was not specific to    children to a religious prayer?
any one religion it mentioned “Almighty
God.”

Though students were not required to recite
                                               Ruling by the Supreme Court:
the prayer everyone heard it over the
 intercom.                                     The opinion of the Court was that since
                                               the school was funded by the government
    Almighty God, we acknowledge our           religious prayers violated the separation
    dependence upon Thee, and we beg
                                               of church and state.
    Thy blessings upon us, our parents,
    our teachers and our country.
    Amen.
                       Miranda v Arizona:
                “The Right to Remain Silent Case”
Facts of the Case:                      Issues before Supreme Court:
                                        Was the evidence obtained by police
In 1963 Ernesto Miranda was             valid?
   arrested and charged with
   kidnapping and rape.                 Did the police make Miranda aware of his
                                        right to not incriminate himself?
During his initial interrogation he
  denied involvement but later          Ruling by the Supreme Court:
  under the stress of police
  questioning he finally                The opinion of the Court was that
  confessed.                            suspects [people arrested and accused
                                        of crimes] must be informed of their
                                        right against self-incrimination by the
At his interrogation Miranda had        police while they are being arrested.
   no lawyer present.
                                        Results of the Ruling:
Miranda was found guilty and was        All states now read the version of
   convicted of the charges in the
   state court of Arizona. His          the following statement to accused
   conviction was appealed and made     suspects:
   it all the way to the U.S. Supreme   You have the right to remain silent. Anything you
   Court.                               say can and will be used against you in a court of
                                        law. You have the right to have an attorney present
                                        during questioning. If you cannot afford an
                                        attorney, one will be appointed for you. Do you
                                        understand these rights?
                                     Mapp v Ohio:
                                “The Porno Pics Case”

Facts of the Case:                              Issues before Supreme Court:

                                                Was the search of Mapp’s house legal?
The home of well known woman who dated
   a bookmaker [illegal bet taker] Dollree
   Mapp’s home was searched by police           Can police seize items that are not in plain
   because of a bomb threat.                       view
                                                and “hold them against you?”
Police did not have a warrant [written
    permission].                                Must you have a specific search warrant?

The search uncovered pornography              Ruling by the Supreme Court:
   [pictures and magazines] which at the
   time was illegal. Mapp was arrested.       The opinion of the Court was that the
                                              search of Mapp’s house was illegal because
Based on the evidence found at the
   residence she was convicted in Ohio        There was no warrant and the items found
   state court and sent to prison.            were not in plain view.

Her conviction was appealed and made it all   The items found were not even the type the
   the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.         police were looking for even they had
                                              warrant.
                                              The evidence found against Mapp could be
                                              excluded.
                                              Therefore the search was a violation of
                                              Mapp’s 4th Amendment protection against
                                              unreasonable search and seizure.
                        Bethel School District No. 403 v Fraser:
                            “The Limited Free School Speech Case”

Facts of the Case:                                            Issues before Supreme Court:
A high school senior gave a speech nominating
a friend for Class President that was filled                  Was the school allowed to punish students
With suggestive language:                                     for speech considered disruptive?

"I know a man who is firm - he's firm in his pants, he's
                                                              Was Fraser within his “rights” to say what
     firm in his shirt, his character is firm - but most
     [of] all, his belief in you the students of Bethel, is   he wanted to say?
     firm. Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point
     and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue
     and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in
     spurts - he drives hard, pushing and pushing until        Ruling by the Supreme Court:
     finally - he succeeds. Jeff is a man who will go to
     the very end - even the climax, for each and every        The opinion of the Court was that the
     one of you. So please vote for Jeff Kuhlman, as           Unrestricted Freedom of speech did not
     he'll never come between us and the best our
                                                               protect Fraser because his words were
     school can be."
                                                               disruptive unlike the behavior of the
                                                               Tinkers.
He was suspended from school for 2 days.

His suspension was reversed by the U.S. Court                  The school was correct in their decision
of Appeals.                                                    to suspend and it was reinstated.

The Bethel School District appealed to the
High Court to reinstate the suspension.
                                   Texas v Johnson:
                                “The Burnt Flag Case”
Facts of the Case:                              Issues before Supreme Court:

As a way to protest against President           Were Johnson’s actions a protected
Ronald Reagan and his policies Gregory          form of expression even though it
Johnson burned an American flag at the          was very unpatriotic and insulting?
Republican Convention in Dallas, Texas.

                                                Can states make laws protecting
He was eventually sentenced to 1 year in jail   certain symbols?
and a $2,000 fine by the state of Texas.


48 out of 50 states at that time had laws       Ruling by the Supreme Court:
banning abuse to the U.S. flag.

                                                The opinion of the Court was that
His conviction was overturned and upheld by
                                                although this expression was very offensive
all courts on appeal.
                                                to democracy and its symbol the symbolic
                                                action was an acceptable form of protected
The State of Texas appealed to the High
                                                speech.
Court.
                    Image Sources
   http://www.rashkind.com/Gideon/Gideon_poolroom.jpg
   http://mysafetynow.com/library/House_burglar_2.gif
   http://z.about.com/d/civilliberty/1/0/I/1/-/-/electricchair500.jpg
   www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/drawing.html
   http://www.landmarkcases.org/bakke/images/clown_cartoon.gif
   http://www2.maxwell.syr.edu/plegal/scales/tlo.gif
   http://www.stus.com

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:10
posted:3/20/2012
language:English
pages:18
yaohongm yaohongm http://
About