data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/68abb/68abb56c7f787cd2955a41f2e3ff1d7b7c5854f2" alt="Скачать презентацию Second Amendment 1791 Right to Bear Arms Guarantees Скачать презентацию Second Amendment 1791 Right to Bear Arms Guarantees"
e8eaf95857db8f4d6269ffebfc8587de.ppt
- Количество слайдов: 34
Second Amendment: 1791: Right to Bear Arms Guarantees states the right to keep a militia. Gives the right to bear arms for a militia. Congress can regulate interstate sale of weapons. States regulate intrastate use and sale of firearms within their own boundaries.
Does the right to bear arms mean fully automatic weapons? Does this limit or protect your freedom of the right to bear arms? What would the Founding Father’s think?
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS— 2 ND AMENDMENT Common National, State, and Local Gun Laws Restrictions on owning and carrying handguns. Background checks Limited the sale of certain types of weapons. Requirements that guns be stored in a fashion to prevent their theft or children from accessing and firing them. Courts have usually upheld these.
RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS Militia Clause: Many advocates of gun control argued that the Second Amendment applied only to the right of states to create militias. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) Individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. Individual can possess firearm for self defense Applied to federal enclaves; not incorporated into states rights since D. C. is not a state (it is a enclave—directly controlled by the federal government) Mc. Donald v Chicago (2010) incorporated gun rights into states; changed gun restrictions nationwide (Iowa surge in permits to carry)
DEFENDANTS’ RIGHTS—RIGHTS OF THE ACCUSED Much of the Bill of Rights (Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8) apply to defendants’ rights. Interpreting Defendants’ Rights Criminal Justice personnel are limited by the Bill of Rights and failure to follow constitutional protections may invalidate a conviction. Courts continually rule on what is constitutional and what is not.
Fourth Amendment. 1791: Searches Seizures Guarantees that searches and seizures will be conducted only when a judge feels that there is “reasonable cause” to issue a search warrant. Protects the right to privacy by limiting searches. Evidence seized illegally without warrant cannot be used in court.
Search and Seizure include this? Does this limit or protect your freedoms? What would the Founding Father’s think?
PATRIOT ACT (2001)—TOO MUCH POWER GIVEN TO THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH? ? ? “sneak and peek” “lone wolf” “roving wiretaps” Tips scale in favor of more powerful executive branch (includes agencies such as CIA; FBI: Homeland Security; Dept of Defense)
USA PATRIOT ACT (2001) Some believe that the Patriot Act conflicts with the protections given by the Fourth Amendment • 4 th Amendment requires that if people are to be investigated it must be with a valid search warrant signed by a judge and based on probable cause and the assumption that people are innocent until proven guilty • Makes it easy to spy on people and people may never know their privacy has been violated
EXCLUSIONARY RULE The rule that evidence, no matter how incriminating, cannot be introduced into trial if it was not legally or constitutionally obtained Mapp v. Ohio (1961) Critics say this rule allows some criminals to go free due to “technicalities” Supporters respond that defendants rights are protected in a system where everyone is “innocent until proven guilty” EXCEPTIONS: Exigent circumstances: If probable cause exists, if search is necessary for officer safety; if search is limited to material within suspect immediate control or if material can be disposed of readily while waiting for warrant (drugs) EXCEPTIONS: Plain View: Can seize and use in court
MAPP V. OHIO (1961) Dollree Mapp lived in Cleveland, Ohio, where police forcibly entered her house without a search warrant and found obscene items. After being prosecuted and convicted, Mapp appealed her conviction to the Supreme Court. In Mapp, the Court expanded the reach of the Fourth Amendment to the actions of state law enforcement officers. Evidence illegally obtained could be excluded from trial. After Mapp, the use of search warrants increased dramatically in all states.
THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY— 4 TH AMENDMENT What about right to privacy? It is not specifically guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, but the Supreme Court has interpreted the first ten amendments to imply this right. Griswold v. Connecticut, 1965 Makes states forbidding birth control to be unconstitutional - there are zones of privacy in marital bedrooms
Griswold v Connecticut (1965) asserted the right to privacy Roe v Wade (1973) to forbid states from controlling abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy. Webster v Reproductive Health Services (1989): Upheld a Missouri law that prevented the use of state funds for abortion clinics and that prohibited state employees from performing abortions Planned Parenthood v Caseys (1992): While allowing abortions, increased regulation on them.
Do police officers ALWAYS have to read these rights? Does this limit or protect your rights?
Fifth Amendment. 1791: Rights of an Accused Person. Guarantees that no one can be tried for a serious crime unless a grand jury has decided there is enough evidence A person can not be tried for same crime twice (Double Jeopardy) Members of armed forced can be court martial You cannot be forced to testify against yourself or answer question that may incriminate you (self-incrimination) Due process of law (Federal Level) Miranda v. Arizona (1966): Suspects must be informed of rights before questioned
MIRANDA V. ARIZONA 1966 In Miranda v. Arizona (1966), the Supreme Court ruled that detained criminal suspects, prior to police questioning, must be informed of their constitutional right to an attorney and against selfincrimination. (5 th and 6 th Amendments) A mug shot of Ernesto Miranda, whose wrongful conviction led to the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, in which the Court held that detained criminal suspects must be informed of their rights prior to police questioning.
SELF-INCRIMINATION— 5 TH AMENDMENT Definition: when an individual accused of a crime is compelled to be a witness against himself or herself in court Police must inform suspects of these and other Fifth Amendment protections upon arrest. Miranda v. Arizona (1966) Protection from coerced confessions and entrapments
Sixth Amendment. 1791: Right to a Speedy Trial Protects the rights of individuals charged with federal crimes to defend themselves in a court trial th 6 amendment required jury of 12 in federal cases; can be fewer in state cases; conviction does not require unanimous vote Right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury May ask to be tried by a judge; change of venue Know charges to prepare a defense; Right to hear and questions witnesses Legal counsel must be provided for a defendant in federal and state courts (Gideon v. Wainwright)
The landmark 1963 U. S. Supreme Court decision Gideon v. Wainwright, which established the right to counsel (6 th Amendment) in criminal cases. Caused the most significant transformation in American criminal justice history: Every defendant, whether wealthy or poor, is guaranteed the right to a lawyer.
Gideon Wainwright—Did not receive an attorney Change of Venue for high profile cases: Casey Anthony (accused and acquitted for killing daughter) and Jackie Burkle (accused of killing newborn twins)
DEFENDANTS’ RIGHTS Trials Plea bargaining: a bargain between the prosecution and defense for a defendant to plead guilty to a lesser crime; 90 percent of cases end here and do not go to trial Juries generally consist of 12 people, but unanimity is not always needed to convict. The Sixth Amendment also guarantees a “speedy and public” trial.
Eighth Amendment. 1791: Bail and Punishment Bans “cruel and unusual punishment” but does not define “cruel and unusual”; Prohibits excessive bail; prohibits excessive fines; Witherspoon v Illinois (1968) overturned death penalty because opponents of death penalty were excluded from jury at sentencing. Furman v Georgia (1972) overturned Georgia’s death penalty because it was imposed in random way with regard to race and income. Woodson v North Caroline (1976) ruled against mandatory death penalties.
Gregg v. Georgia (1976) and Mc. Clesky v Kemp (1987) Death penalty does not violate the Bill of Rights—that is, it is not considered “cruel and unusual” and did not violate the 14 th Amendment even though it was “extreme”
Thompson v Oklahoma, 1988 No death penalty for those under 16 years old Miller v Alabama, 2011 Life in Prison without parole cruel and unusual punishment for juveniles
Cruel and Unusual? Does it limit or protect your freedoms? What would the Founding Father’s think?
Except for…… Immigration Medicinal MJ
14 TH AMENDMENT THE 14 TH AMENDMENT IS LIKE OUR SECOND BILL OF RIGHTS. THE FIRST TEN PROTECT US FROM ABUSES FROM THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE 14 TH PROTECTS US FROM ABUSES FROM THE STATES! FOUR CLAUSES: CITIZENSHIP CLAUSE, PRIVILEGES AND IMMUNITIES, DUE PROCESS, EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAWS
TAKING A LOOK AT THE 14 TH AMENDMENT Section 1: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction [not owing allegiance to another country] thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Other cases that changed America In response to the federal government's controversial decision to institute a national bank, Maryland tried to tax the bank out of business. A customer sued Maryland the court ruled that the implied powers in the Constitution allowed the federal government to create a national bank and that national supremacy made Maryland's actions unconstitutional. Mc. Culloch v Maryland, 1819
Citizens United v Election Commission, 2010 The Supreme Court, in its decision fundamentally changed campaign finance law by allowing corporations and unions to contribute unlimited funds to political action committees not affiliated with a candidate. Many are calling for it to be overturned.
President Richard Nixon claimed executive privilege over taped conversations regarding the Watergate break-in in an attempt to keep the tapes out of a congressional investigation. The Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege is not ironclad. United States v Nixon, 1974
UNDERSTANDING CIVIL LIBERTIES Civil Liberties and Democracy • Rights ensured in the Bill of Rights are essential to democracy. • Courts typically protect civil liberties from excesses of majority rule. Civil Liberties and the Scope of Government • In deciding between freedom and order, the United States generally chooses liberty. • Civil liberties limit the scope of government, even though government efforts are needs to protect rights.
SUMMARY Civil liberties are expressed in the Bill of Rights. These are the individual’s protections—for religion, expression, assembly, and the accused—against the government. Legislatures and courts constantly define what the Bill of Rights protects in practice.
e8eaf95857db8f4d6269ffebfc8587de.ppt