essay about civil liberties

Chapter 4: Civil Liberties

What Are Civil Liberties?

Learning objectives.

By the end of this section, you will be able to:

Define civil liberties and civil rights
Describe the origin of civil liberties in the U.S. context
Identify the key positions on civil liberties taken at the Constitutional Convention
Explain the Civil War origin of concern that the states should respect civil liberties

The U.S. Constitution —in particular, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights—protects the freedoms and rights of individuals. It does not limit this protection just to citizens or adults; instead, in most cases, the Constitution simply refers to “persons,” which over time has grown to mean that even children, visitors from other countries, and immigrants—permanent or temporary, legal or undocumented—enjoy the same freedoms when they are in the United States or its territories as adult citizens do. So, whether you are a Japanese tourist visiting Disney World or someone who has stayed beyond the limit of days allowed on your visa, you do not sacrifice your liberties. In everyday conversation, we tend to treat freedoms, liberties, and rights as being effectively the same thing—similar to how separation of powers and checks and balances are often used as if they are interchangeable, when in fact they are distinct concepts.

DEFINING CIVIL LIBERTIES

To be more precise in their language, political scientists and legal experts make a distinction between civil liberties and civil rights, even though the Constitution has been interpreted to protect both. We typically envision civil liberties as being limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms that governments may not legally intrude on. For example, the First Amendment denies the government the power to prohibit “the free exercise” of religion; the states and the national government cannot forbid people to follow a religion of their choice, even if politicians and judges think the religion is misguided, blasphemous, or otherwise inappropriate. You are free to create your own religion and recruit followers to it (subject to the U.S. Supreme Court deeming it a religion), even if both society and government disapprove of its tenets. That said, the way you practice your religion may be regulated if it impinges on the rights of others. Similarly, the Eighth Amendment says the government cannot impose “cruel and unusual punishments” on individuals for their criminal acts. Although the definitions of cruel and unusual have expanded over the years, as we will see later in this chapter, the courts have generally and consistently interpreted this provision as making it unconstitutional for government officials to torture suspects.

Civil rights, on the other hand, are guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and that decisions will be made on the basis of merit rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics. Because of the Constitution’s civil rights guarantee, it is unlawful for a school or university run by a state government to treat students differently based on their race, ethnicity, age, sex, or national origin. In the 1960s and 1970s, many states had separate schools where only students of a certain race or gender were able to study. However, the courts decided that these policies violated the civil rights of students who could not be admitted because of those rules. [1]

The idea that Americans—indeed, people in general—have fundamental rights and liberties was at the core of the arguments in favor of their independence. In writing the Declaration of Independence in 1776, Thomas Jefferson drew on the ideas of John Locke to express the colonists’ belief that they had certain inalienable or natural rights that no ruler had the power or authority to deny to his or her subjects. It was a scathing legal indictment of King George III for violating the colonists’ liberties. Although the Declaration of Independence does not guarantee specific freedoms, its language was instrumental in inspiring many of the states to adopt protections for civil liberties and rights in their own constitutions, and in expressing principles of the founding era that have resonated in the United States since its independence. In particular, Jefferson’s words “all men are created equal” became the centerpiece of struggles for the rights of women and minorities (Figure) .

A photo of three civil rights activists, from left to right, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, and Charlton Heston.

CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION

The Constitution as written in 1787 did not include a Bill of Rights , although the idea of including one was proposed and, after brief discussion, dismissed in the final week of the Constitutional Convention. The framers of the Constitution believed they faced much more pressing concerns than the protection of civil rights and liberties, most notably keeping the fragile union together in the light of internal unrest and external threats.

Moreover, the framers thought that they had adequately covered rights issues in the main body of the document. Indeed, the Federalists did include in the Constitution some protections against legislative acts that might restrict the liberties of citizens, based on the history of real and perceived abuses by both British kings and parliaments as well as royal governors. In Article I , Section 9, the Constitution limits the power of Congress in three ways: prohibiting the passage of bills of attainder, prohibiting ex post facto laws, and limiting the ability of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.

A bill of attainder is a law that convicts or punishes someone for a crime without a trial, a tactic used fairly frequently in England against the king’s enemies. Prohibition of such laws means that the U.S. Congress cannot simply punish people who are unpopular or seem to be guilty of crimes. An ex post facto law has a retroactive effect: it can be used to punish crimes that were not crimes at the time they were committed, or it can be used to increase the severity of punishment after the fact.

Finally, the writ of habeas corpus is used in our common-law legal system to demand that a neutral judge decide whether someone has been lawfully detained. Particularly in times of war, or even in response to threats against national security, the government has held suspected enemy agents without access to civilian courts, often without access to lawyers or a defense, seeking instead to try them before military tribunals or detain them indefinitely without trial. For example, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln detained suspected Confederate saboteurs and sympathizers in Union-controlled states and attempted to have them tried in military court s, leading the Supreme Court to rule in Ex parte Milligan that the government could not bypass the civilian court system in states where it was operating. [2]

During World War II, the Roosevelt administration interned Japanese Americans and had other suspected enemy agents—including U.S. citizens—tried by military courts rather than by the civilian justice system, a choice the Supreme Court upheld in Ex parte Quirin (Figure) . [3]

More recently, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush and Obama administrations detained suspected terrorists captured both within and outside the United States and sought, with mixed results, to avoid trials in civilian courts. Hence, there have been times in our history when national security issues trumped individual liberties.

A photo of a group of people in a military commission, seated in chairs around a number of tables arranged in a U shape.

Debate has always swirled over these issues. The Federalists reasoned that the limited set of enumerated powers of Congress, along with the limitations on those powers in Article I , Section 9, would suffice, and no separate bill of rights was needed. Alexander Hamilton , writing as Publius in Federalist No. 84, argued that the Constitution was “merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,” rather than to concern itself with “the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.” Hamilton went on to argue that listing some rights might actually be dangerous, because it would provide a pretext for people to claim that rights not included in such a list were not protected. Later, James Madison , in his speech introducing the proposed amendments that would become the Bill of Rights, acknowledged another Federalist argument: “It has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions.” [4]

For that matter, the Articles of Confederation had not included a specific listing of rights either.

However, the Anti-Federalists argued that the Federalists’ position was incorrect and perhaps even insincere. The Anti-Federalists believed provisions such as the elastic clause in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution would allow Congress to legislate on matters well beyond the limited ones foreseen by the Constitution’s authors; thus, they held that a bill of rights was necessary. One of the Anti-Federalists, Brutus , whom most scholars believe to be Robert Yates , wrote: “The powers, rights, and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any state government—It reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness—Life, liberty, and property, are under its controul [sic]. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the state governments.” [5]

The experience of the past two centuries has suggested that the Anti-Federalists may have been correct in this regard; while the states retain a great deal of importance, the scope and powers of the national government are much broader today than in 1787—likely beyond even the imaginings of the Federalists themselves.

The struggle to have rights clearly delineated and the decision of the framers to omit a bill of rights nearly derailed the ratification process. While some of the states were willing to ratify without any further guarantees, in some of the larger states—New York and Virginia in particular—the Constitution’s lack of specified rights became a serious point of contention. The Constitution could go into effect with the support of only nine states, but the Federalists knew it could not be effective without the participation of the largest states. To secure majorities in favor of ratification in New York and Virginia, as well as Massachusetts, they agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to the Constitution.

Ultimately, James Madison delivered on this promise by proposing a package of amendments in the First Congress, drawing from the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia state constitution, suggestions from the ratification conventions, and other sources, which were extensively debated in both houses of Congress and ultimately proposed as twelve separate amendments for ratification by the states. Ten of the amendments were successfully ratified by the requisite 75 percent of the states and became known as the Bill of Rights (Figure) .

EXTENDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES

In the decades following the Constitution’s ratification, the Supreme Court declined to expand the Bill of Rights to curb the power of the states, most notably in the 1833 case of Barron v. Baltimore . [6]

In this case, which dealt with property rights under the Fifth Amendment , the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Bill of Rights applied only to actions by the federal government. Explaining the court’s ruling, Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that it was incorrect to argue that “the Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their [Federal] government.”

In the wake of the Civil War, however, the prevailing thinking about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states changed. Soon after slavery was abolished by the Thirteenth Amendment , state governments—particularly those in the former Confederacy—began to pass “black codes” that restricted the rights of former slaves and effectively relegated them to second-class citizenship under their state laws and constitutions. Angered by these actions, members of the Radical Republican faction in Congress demanded that the laws be overturned. In the short term, they advocated suspending civilian government in most of the southern states and replacing politicians who had enacted the black codes. Their long-term solution was to propose two amendments to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of freed slaves on an equal standing with whites; these rights became the Fourteenth Amendment , which dealt with civil liberties and rights in general, and the Fifteenth Amendment , which protected the right to vote in particular (Figure) . But, the right to vote did not yet apply to women or to Native Americans.

Photo A is of John Bingham. Photo B is of Abraham Lincoln.

With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, civil liberties gained more clarification. First, the amendment says, “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,” which is a provision that echoes the privileges and immunities clause in Article IV , Section 2, of the original Constitution ensuring that states treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens. (To use an example from today, the punishment for speeding by an out-of-state driver cannot be more severe than the punishment for an in-state driver). Legal scholars and the courts have extensively debated the meaning of this privileges or immunities clause over the years; some have argued that it was supposed to extend the entire Bill of Rights (or at least the first eight amendments) to the states, while others have argued that only some rights are extended. In 1999, Justice John Paul Stevens , writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, argued in Saenz v. Roe that the clause protects the right to travel from one state to another. [7]

More recently, Justice Clarence Thomas argued in the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago ruling that the individual right to bear arms applied to the states because of this clause. [8]

The second provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that pertains to applying the Bill of Rights to the states is the due process clause, which says, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” This provision is similar to the Fifth Amendment in that it also refers to “due process,” a term that generally means people must be treated fairly and impartially by government officials (or with what is commonly referred to as substantive due process). Although the text of the provision does not mention rights specifically, the courts have held in a series of cases that it indicates there are certain fundamental liberties that cannot be denied by the states. For example, in Sherbert v. Verner (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath. [9]

Beginning in 1897, the Supreme Court has found that various provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting these fundamental liberties must be upheld by the states, even if their state constitutions and laws do not protect them as fully as the Bill of Rights does—or at all. This means there has been a process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights into the practices of the states; in other words, the Constitution effectively inserts parts of the Bill of Rights into state laws and constitutions, even though it doesn’t do so explicitly. When cases arise to clarify particular issues and procedures, the Supreme Court decides whether state laws violate the Bill of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional.

For example, under the Fifth Amendment a person can be tried in federal court for a felony—a serious crime—only after a grand jury issues an indictment indicating that it is reasonable to try the person for the crime in question. (A grand jury is a group of citizens charged with deciding whether there is enough evidence of a crime to prosecute someone.) But the Supreme Court has ruled that states don’t have to use grand juries as long as they ensure people accused of crimes are indicted using an equally fair process.

Selective incorporation is an ongoing process. When the Supreme Court initially decided in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to keep and bear arms, it did not decide then that it was a fundamental liberty the states must uphold as well. It was only in the McDonald v. Chicago case two years later that the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment into state law. Another area in which the Supreme Court gradually moved to incorporate the Bill of Rights regards censorship and the Fourteenth Amendment. In Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Court disagreed with state courts regarding censorship and ruled it unconstitutional except in rare cases. [10]

The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the freedoms of individuals from interference by government officials. Originally these protections were applied only to actions by the national government; different sets of rights and liberties were protected by state constitutions and laws, and even when the rights themselves were the same, the level of protection for them often differed by definition across the states. Since the Civil War, as a result of the passage and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and a series of Supreme Court decisions, most of the Bill of Rights’ protections of civil liberties have been expanded to cover actions by state governments as well through a process of selective incorporation. Nonetheless there is still vigorous debate about what these rights entail and how they should be balanced against the interests of others and of society as a whole.

Green v. County School Board of New Kent County , 391 U.S. 430 (1968); Allen v. Wright , 468 U.S. 737 (1984). ↵
Ex parte Milligan , 71 U.S. 2 (1866). ↵
Ex parte Quirin , 317 U.S. 1 (1942); See William H. Rehnquist. 1998. All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime . New York: William Morrow. ↵
American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond, “Madison Speech Proposing the Bill of Rights June 8 1789,” http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php (March 4, 2016). ↵
Constitution Society, “To the Citizens of the State of New-York,” http://www.constitution.org/afp/brutus02.htm (March 4, 2016). ↵
Barron v. Baltimore , 32 U.S. 243 (1833). ↵
Saenz v. Roe , 526 U.S. 489 (1999). ↵
McDonald v. Chicago , 561 U.S. 742 (2010). ↵
Sherbert v. Verner , 374 U.S. 398 (1963). ↵
Near v. Minnesota , 283 U.S. 697 (1931). ↵

Share This Book

If you're seeing this message, it means we're having trouble loading external resources on our website.

If you're behind a web filter, please make sure that the domains *.kastatic.org and *.kasandbox.org are unblocked.

To log in and use all the features of Khan Academy, please enable JavaScript in your browser.

Unit 3: Civil liberties and civil rights

About this unit.

How does the Constitution protect civil liberties and rights? How have different Supreme Court interpretations of different amendments impacted and defined civil rights in the U.S.?

The Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights: an introduction (Opens a modal)
The Bill of Rights: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
The Bill of Rights Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The First Amendment: freedom of religion

The First Amendment (Opens a modal)
Engel v. Vitale (1962) (Opens a modal)
Wisconsin v. Yoder (1972) (Opens a modal)
Freedom of religion: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Freedom of religion Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The First Amendment: freedom of speech

Schenck v. United States (1919) (Opens a modal)
Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) (Opens a modal)
Freedom of speech: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Freedom of speech Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The First Amendment: freedom of the press

New York Times Co. v. United States (1971) (Opens a modal)
Freedom of the press: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Freedom of the press Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

The Second Amendment

The Second Amendment (Opens a modal)
The Second Amendment: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
The Second Amendment Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety

The Fourth Amendment (Opens a modal)
The Eighth Amendment (Opens a modal)
Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Balancing individual freedom with public order and safety Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Selective incorporation

Selective incorporation (Opens a modal)
McDonald v. Chicago (Opens a modal)
Selective incorporation: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Selective incorporation Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Due process and the rights of the accused

The Fifth Amendment (Opens a modal)
The Sixth Amendment (Opens a modal)
Miranda v. Arizona (Opens a modal)
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) (Opens a modal)
Due process and the rights of the accused: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Due process and the rights of the accused Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Due process and the right to privacy

Roe v. Wade (Opens a modal)
Due process and the right to privacy: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Due process and right to privacy Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Social movements and equal protection

The Fourteenth Amendment and equal protection (Opens a modal)
Letter from a Birmingham Jail (Opens a modal)
Social movements and equal protection: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Social movements and equal protection Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Government responses to social movements

Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (Opens a modal)
Government responses to social movements: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Government responses to social movements Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Balancing minority and majority rights

Rulings on majority and minority rights by the Supreme Court (Opens a modal)
Balancing minority and majority rights: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Balancing minority and majority rights Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

Affirmative action

Affirmative action (Opens a modal)
Affirmative action: lesson overview (Opens a modal)
Affirmative action Get 3 of 4 questions to level up!

War and Civil Liberty

By Robert M.S. McDonald, Ph.D.

John Locke, whose political philosophy helped to inspire and justify the American Revolution, explained that the first people to form civilizations left behind the perfect freedom of the state of nature in order to secure the liberties that mattered most. These, he believed, were the essential rights to one’s life, liberty, and property. The Founders agreed. Benjamin Franklin once opined that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Thomas Jefferson, perhaps paraphrasing his friend, wrote that “a society that will trade a little liberty for a little order will lose both and deserve neither.” Each of these men seemed to recognize that times of tumult and perceived danger pose threats to fundamental freedoms at least as great as those that imperil America’s security. This is especially the case in times of war, when peaceful processes such as diplomacy give way to the use of force. The belief that those who oppose American foreign policy support America’s mortal enemies often results in the chilling of public discourse and the suppression of actual and even suspected dissenters.

Franklin and Jefferson understood that many different forms of government could squelch opposition to the country’s best interests. They also recognized that the regimes best equipped to achieve this aim would be, almost by definition, the most dictatorial and oppressive. The United States, they believed, should aim less to subjugate the opinions of Americans than to implement processes that channeled, moderated, and refined opinions into laws consistent with not only the common good but also the government’s fundamental purpose, which was, as they and their Continental Congress affirmed in the Declaration of Independence, the preservation of “certain inalienable rights” such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The Revolutionary generation stood so committed to this premise that in 1791, less than a decade after the successful completion of the War for Independence and three years after the enactment of a new federal Constitution, its members ratified the First Amendment, which affirmed that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The Bill of Rights was only seven years old, however, when Congress joined with the administration of John Adams in passing the 1798 Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws made it a crime—punishable by fines up to $2,000 and prison terms up to two years—to publish “false, scandalous, and malicious writing” intended to bring “into contempt or disrepute” the president or Congress. They also extended from to fourteen years the residence requirement for the naturalization of resident aliens and allowed the president to imprison or deport any citizens of hostile nations residing in the United States as well as unnaturalized aliens from friendly nations who he considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States.” Intended to strengthen the hand of the national government as it waged against France an undeclared “Quasi-War,” these provisions also aimed to weaken Adams’s Jeffersonian Republican opponents.

Adams felt some reluctance in signing off on these measures. In the end, he did so in an attempt to mollify partisan allies who wished for a formal declaration of war against France, which he feared would compromise the new nation’s independence, lead to the loss of life, and burden the treasury. His actions inflamed the resistance of his opponents, however. Jefferson and James Madison, the “father” of the Bill of Rights, drafted for the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia, respectively, resolutions questioning the constitutionality of the measures and calling on other states to join with them in protest. In the end, Adams succeeded in making peace with France, a fact that alienated many Federalists and, together with public hostility to the Alien and Sedition Acts, contributed to his loss of the presidency to Jefferson in the election of 1800. The law regarding sedition expired on the day that Jefferson took the oath of office.

While Jefferson’s inauguration concluded one of the earliest crises in American civil liberties, the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 prompted a Civil War that helped to provoke further challenges to the Bill of Rights. Lincoln, a northern Republican who wished to halt the spread of slavery to new territories, was not even on the ballot in ten southern states. By the day of his elevation to the presidency, seven states had withdrawn from the Union. Some have argued that Lincoln’s first and most consequential transgression against civil liberties was his refusal to recognize the right of secession. The Constitution did not expressly preclude states from withdrawing freely; had it done so, it is doubtful that any would have ratified it. Alexander Hamilton, in the Federalist Papers, argued that states could feel confident joining the union because they always could withdraw if they wished. Jefferson, in the aftermath of the Hartford Convention, declared that “if any State in the Union will declare that it prefers separation … to a continuance in the union … I have no hesitation in saying, ‘Let us separate.’” Lincoln’s refusal to recognize the secession of South Carolina—and his consequent refusal to withdraw US troops from Fort Sumter in Charleston harbor—prompted the southern artillery attack that began the Civil War and precipitated the secession of Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas.

Maryland, another slave state, seemed poised to join the Confederacy as well. Had Maryland seceded, the US capital would have been surrounded by the Confederate States of America. To forestall the secessionist movement there and in other border states, Lincoln invoked the clause of the Constitution that allowed Congress, which was not in session, to revoke habeas corpus “when in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety will require it.”

Free to incarcerate suspected secessionists without charging them with violating any law or providing any evidence that they had done so, US civil and military authorities oversaw the arrest of 13,000 Americans, including John Merryman of Maryland. Roger Taney, Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court, issued a writ of habeas corpus commanding military officials to present Merryman to a magistrate who would determine if there was cause to hold him. When Merryman’s captors refused, Taney ruled unconstitutional Lincoln’s suspension of normal legal procedures. Lincoln refused to recognize this decision. He also refused to do anything to stop the shuttering of many anti-war newspapers, including a handful that his administration directly ordered shut down.

While Lincoln is best remembered as a great emancipator, by his own admission the principal objective of the Civil War—at least the initial one—was to preserve the Union. “If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it,” he wrote in 1862, “and if I could save it by freeing all of the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that.” For him, the United States was not merely a means to an end greater than itself but an end in and of itself. Liberty mattered, but the Union—which he viewed as the best arrangement for the protection of the people’s liberties—had to come first. It wasn’t until 1863 that Lincoln began to describe the war’s meaning in terms of living up to the Declaration of Independence’s promise of equality of rights, as he did in the Gettysburg Address, or as punishment for the sin of slavery, as he did in his Second Inaugural.

Woodrow Wilson, who led America into World War I, worried about the effect of war on civil liberties. In advance of America’s entrance as a belligerent nation, he reportedly predicted that Americans would “forget there ever was such a thing as tolerance. To fight you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of our national life.” Wilson concluded that the US needed appropriate legislation to deter subversive activities. He supported the Espionage Act of 1917, which criminalized words or deeds that might cause “insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, [or] refusal of duty” in the military or that interfered with recruitment into the armed forces. The Sedition Act of 1918, meanwhile, prohibited “disloyal, profane, scurrilous, or abusive language” aimed at the national government. As a result, a Wisconsin official was sentenced to thirty months in jail for besmirching a Red Cross fund raiser. A Hollywood producer received a ten-year sentence for a film that portrayed in a negative light one of America’s allies. Its title was “The Spirit of ’76.” All told, at least 8,000 Americans faced prosecution or some other form of government suppression under these laws.

World War I also occasioned a chilling of the climate within America for people whose ancestors hailed from the nation’s adversaries, such as Germany. The climate for Japanese Americans during World War II, however, was far worse. For one thing, Japanese Americans’ persecution as a racial minority was official and specific. President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s 1942 Executive Order #9066 initiated the legal authorization of the forcible internment of about 110,000 Japanese or Japanese Americans in camps in the western half of the United States. Americans with as little as 1/16th Japanese ancestry were exposed to this persecution, which allowed the government to remove adults and children from their homes and businesses so that they could be confined within barbed-wire compounds. It remains unclear how many of these individuals aimed to threaten the national security of the United States. In the aftermath of the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor, however, a great deal of pressure—at least some of it racially motivated— fell upon Roosevelt. He never expressed remorse for succumbing to it.

These few instances of wartime abridgments of Americans’ civil liberties ignore many others. Some would argue that President George W. Bush’s USA Patriot Act, passed shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks on America by Islamic extremists, also elevated the nation’s security above the liberty of its citizens. If so, this is nothing new. James Madison explained that “of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other.” International strife, after all, was “the parent of armies,” the costly institutions that spawned “debts and taxes” and throughout history had served as “the known instruments for bringing the many under the few.” Interestingly, the War of 1812, over which Madison presided, offers no real examples of the suppression of civil liberties in an effort to meet wartime goals. Other wars, however, offer examples not only of the curtailment of civil liberty but also of personal and economic choices. Involuntary military conscription and the assumption of war powers over international trade and domestic production have arisen from international conflict. However one defines liberty, history makes clear that, even in the freest of nations, war poses for it great challenges.

Dr. Robert M. S. McDonald is Associate Professor of History at the United States Military Academy. A graduate of the University of Virginia and Oxford University, he earned his Ph.D. at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He is editor of Thomas Jefferson’s Military Academy: Founding West Point. He is completing an edited collection titled Light & Liberty: Thomas Jefferson and the Power of Knowledge as well as a book to be titled Confounding Father: Thomas Jefferson and the Politics of Personality.

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin’s considerable work in the areas of journalism, science, and invention often obscure his many contributions to the creation of the Constitution and protection of American freedoms.

Security, Liberty, and the USA PATRIOT ACT

Following the terrorist attacks on New York City and the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, Congress enacted and President George W. Bush signed an intelligence gathering bill. Introduced as the Anti-Terrorism bill on September 19, 2001, it was signed into law on October 26, 2001 as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001, or USA PATRIOT Act.

Did Abraham Lincoln Exceed His Presidential Powers during the Civil War?

Two scholars debate this question.

Korematsu v. United States and Japanese Internment DBQ

Use this lesson to have students explore the challenges to civil liberties faced by Japanese Americans in internment camps during WWII.

Reading the Sedition Act of 1918 | A Primary Source Close Read w/ BRI

In 1918, the Sedition Act of 1918, which amended the Espionage Act of 1917, was enacted. This Wilson-era Act imposed harsh freedom-of-speech restrictions in order to sustain domestic war propaganda and suppress public opposition to the war. They were upheld by the Supreme Court and remained in place until 1921. In this dialogue, Tony and Joshua discuss the importance of staying vigilant against government violations of free expression; should wartime circumstances change the types of free-speech protections that are afforded to Americans under the First Amendment?

Civil Liberties Essay

As Benjamin Franklin once said “A people who would trade liberty for security deserve neither”. I totally agree in that we as the people of the United States should not ask for greater safety at the price of liberty. I feel that the government does not have the power to limit our First Amendment rights. The people of this country hold the power and politicians are merely their puppets. These leaders can ask for all kinds of authority during a time like this but all it would take is a string backlash from the public for them to back down. What is it about a time like this that renders these rights so unnecessary? People fought incredibly hard and gave their lives for these standards and for us to discard them at a time like this is …show more content…

Doing so would render them useless forever. If they don’t apply then, why should they apply now could be the cry heard in thirty years. The foundation of our nation was built upon those ten amendments and though our nation might not stand solely upon them today, they play a vital part of our lives today. Without these rules, where would our country be today? That cannot be answered but I can argue that life would be much different. This idea that if we suddenly overthrow our constitution, that we’re safe, that doesn’t work. As I earlier sated, the government does not possess the power to limit our first amendment rights. Sadly to say, the number one thing to politicians is re-election. When faced with a strong-opposition from the voting public, they will back down. It is our job and duty as free citizens to fight to protect our rights given to us in the Bill of Rights . I feel that many people now don’t truly realize what is going on and what exactly they are being stripped off. They are letting their feelings of anger and revenge override their need for liberty. This is something that can be chalked up as a learning experience for our country. When the smoke has cleared, people will scratch their heads and wonder what happened during these times. It is a pattern established by our nation many generations ago, and unfortunately, it continues. Maybe this time we will actually get it right and not let it happen again.

The Bill of Rights and Protection of Civil Liberties Essay

During the next few years the Bill of Rights began to be accepted by the

The Bill of Rights Essay

3 Works Cited

In the development process of America, its sound that legislative system has a very solid foundation for the construction of American society. The Bill of Rights as one of the successful act in America, its importance position has never been ignored. The Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison and came into effect on December 15, 1791. It has given the powerful support for the improvements of American society. The Bill of Rights has become an essential part in guaranteeing the further development of culture. The influence of The Bill of Rights can be easily found in its cultural revolutionizing. It can not only guarantee the harmonious relationship among all the walk of society, but can also promote the construction of harmonious

10 Works Cited

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights Essay

"If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perpetuation." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1938 (Isaacs 66)

The First Amendment Essay

5 Works Cited

America has been built on freedom throughout the years. Freedom to speak, freedom to choose, freedom to worship, and freedom to do just about anything you want within that of the law. America’s law has been designed to protect and preserve these freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. It assures citizens that the federal government shall not restrict freedom of worship. It specifically prohibits Congress from establishing an official, government supported church. Under The First Amendment, the federal government cannot require citizens to pay taxes to support a certain church, nor can people be prohibited from worshipping in any way they see fit. However, if a certain religion

The Patriot Act Of 2001 Essay

One beautiful morning in September 2001 many people went about their day like they have before. Some off to work, or traveling for business, or to visit family, and in a blink of an eye our lives in America changed forever. We were attacked, on our own soil, not once, but four times. That fourth plane didn’t make it to its destination, thanks to the brave souls aboard that sacrificed their lives to save others. On that fateful day 2,753(NYmag) families would never be the same, as well as the rest of us that watch in disbelief. The attacks on September 11th 2001 led to something called the Patriot Act. In the days after 9/11 Congress hurried to pass a bill to give law-enforcement agencies the power to fight domestic terrorism. On October 26, President George W. Bush signed three hundred page USA Patriot Act into law (Crf.org). The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was created to prevent and catch terrorist in the United States and around the world. The contents of it has been one of great controversy in the rights of our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. Can we give up too much freedom to keep us safe? Where do we draw the line to keep our Country safe?

Civil Liberties And Civil Rights Essay

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights are two terms that are often used interchangeably in America. Since the founding of our nation there has always been the debate of the limit of government and what rights were guaranteed to each individual. Many of the architects of our government feared that national government could one day become too powerful and begin to infringe on the individual rights of the citizens. As a result, a Bill of Rights was added to our constitution. The Bill of Rights serves as a guide of what the government cannot do. Civil Liberties simply establish precedent on what rights the United States government cannot abridge on. Civil Rights, on the other hand applies to the rights of individuals. Over the history of our nation the question of civil rights has found itself becoming a pillar of our legal system and has been very instrumental in our quest to become a “more perfect union”. In recent history one civil liberty that has caused a continual controversial debate is the second amendment, in addition to how it applies to gun control measures that are being proposed in order to decrease the level of mass shootings. The second amendment clearly defines the intention of individuals to have the right to bear arms. In order to understand why gun control advocates have failed to secure effective gun control legislation, we must explore the reasoning why the second amendment is interpreted the way it is and should Americans be allowed to own guns?

Bill Of Rights Essay

When the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution, they were planned to shield the public from the national government and not the states. States had their individual constitutions, and their laws only had to comply with their constitution. The founders of our country were very concerned about creating too powerful of a centralized government that might overstep on the given civil liberties of the public. As a protection of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights was formed. The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of the Constitution and protect and preserve inalienable rights against abuse by the federal government.

Essay On Civil Rights And Civil Liberties

Our Founding Founders established the federal government with three distinct branches, each with powers over the other in order to have a proper checks and balances to ensure fairness across the board. The U.S. Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of the three branches of government and is a critical document for the federal government. Important laws and documents such as The Bill of Rights, The US Civil Rights Act and The Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) are managed by our Constitution. Below we will discuss three subjects which set up a diverse broad range of viewpoints that are essential in our democracy.

Civil Rights Essay

Chapter 21 Question 2: What key issues and events led the federal government to intervene in the civil rights movement? What were the major pieces of legislation enacted, and how did they dismantle legalized segregation?

Bill of Rights Essay

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution: an amendment that guarantees three rights, one of which is the right to freedom of expression. Under this, there resides the freedom of press. It assures that people are free to communicate through the means of media and dissemination without governmental restraints. However, if the government desires to interfere in one’s expression, the government can do so, but only with proper justification. In such cases, a court case is necessary (“First Amendment”). One such case is New York Times Co. v. United States. In favor of the publications made by the Times that had caused concern for the U.S. government, the final verdict was right in heeding the First Amendment, for the

After the Revolution, the States adopted their own constitutions, many of which contained a Bill of Rights. The Americans still faced the challenge of creating a central government for their new nation. In 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained their “sovereignty, freedom and independence,” while the national government was kept weak and inferior. Over the next few years it became evident that the system of government that had been chosen was not strong enough to completely settle and defend the frontier, regulating trade, currency and commerce, and organizing thirteen states into one union.

Civil Liberty vs. Security Essay

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

Civil Right Essay

1. Discuss when, why and how the Cold War began. Then cite at least one factor that perpetuated the Cold War in each decade from the 1950s-1980s and discuss how the item you selected affected America at home as well. Last, discuss when and why the Cold War ended.

Constitutional Rights Assignment 3 Essay

This report reviews and analyzes individual rights afforded by the constitution and their applicability to the suit for wrongful termination in the case of Korb versus Raytheon. The specific constitutional rights under review are the freedom of speech, freedom of information and challenges associated with employment law. Lawrence Korb, a former Assistant Secretary of Defense and current employee of Raytheon, a large equipment manufacturing company for the U.S. military was terminated after making public statements criticizing defense spending and calling for a reduction of Navy’s fleet. Raytheon, a manufacturer of

Civil Liberties Essays (Examples)

1000+ documents containing “civil liberties” .

Filter by Keywords:(add comma between each)

Civil liberties.

Civil Liberties: Jones case is one of the major recent cases regarding civil liberties that basically examined whether the government requires a search warrant before placing a GPS device on a vehicle and tracking the movements of that vehicle. The ruling by the Supreme Court in this case upholds the extensive right for citizens to be free from unreasonable searches. However, the ruling on the case also demonstrated the struggle within the Supreme Court to balance the objectives of law enforcement with privacy concerns. Generally, the Supreme Court has continued to explore the limits of civil liberties, especially in light of the liberties guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. This case can be traced back to when Antoine Jones was arrested on October 24, 2005, in possession of drugs. The law enforcement officers had attached a tracker to his Jeep albeit without judicial approval and followed Jones for a month ("United States….

Works Cited:

"Online Law Library - Case Summary." Applied Discovery. Applied Discovery, Inc., n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2012. .

"UNITED STATES v. JONES." U.S. Supreme Court Media. Oyez, Inc., n.d. Web. 27 Oct. 2012. .

Civil Liberties and Terrorism 9-11

Civil Liberties, a Price to Pay for Safety? Terrorism is something that a country or a nation has to deal with at some time or another. The United States experienced a terrible tragedy on September 11th 2001 when the twin towers in manhattan collapsed due to hijacked airplanes. Ever since then, America has been on high alert in order to avoid another catastrophe. Some of the measures taken such as the passing of the Patriot Act to ensure such an event will not happen again restrict what can be carried on airplanes, such as smaller carry ons, smaller amount of liquids, etc. American citizens have had issues with these "intrusions." Some have complained about the long wait times at airport check ins or the monitoring of possible "terrorist activity." However, in order for the United States to be a safer country, certain precautions must be met. American citizens should be willing to….

Works Cited

Abdolian, Lisa F., and Harold Takooshian. "The U.S.A. Patriot Act: Civil Liberties, the Media, and Public Opinion." Fordham Urban Law Journal 30.4 (2003): 1429-1440. Print.

Davis, Darren W., and Brian D. Silver. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America." American Journal of Political Science.48.1 (2004): 28-46. Print.

Domke, David, Erica Graham, Kevin Coe, Sue L. John, and Ted Coopman. "Going Public as Political Strategy: The Bush Administration, an Echoing Press, and Passage of the Patriot Act." Political Communication 23.3 (2006): 291-312. Print.

Leone, Richard C, and Greg Anrig. The War on Our Freedoms: Civil Liberties in an Age of Terrorism. New York: BBS PublicAffairs, 2003. Print.

Civil Liberties Habeas Corpus War Terror Subtopics

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, ar Terror subtopics: Explain historical evolution habeas corpus, including English American traditions. The explanation evolution American tradition include general meaning habeas corpus U. Habeas Corpus The principle of habeas corpus promotes the idea that a person needs to be brought before a court in order for him or her to be judged before he or she is provided with a sentence. Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body" and the former written order it is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee in the presence of the court so as for the respective individual to benefit from a fair trial. hen taking into account the U.S., federal courts are in charge of using the habeas corpus writ with the purpose of determining whether or not a detainee is being incarcerated as a result of having actually committed the crime that he or she is….

Works cited:

Dueholm, J.A. "Lincoln's Suspension of the Writ of Habeas Corpus: An Historical and Constitutional Analysis," Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860.0029.205?rgn=main;view=fulltext

Garcia, M.J. "Boumediene v. Bush: Guantanamo Detainees' Right to Habeas Corpus," Retrieved September 17, 2013, from http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL34536.pdf

Schultz, D.A. (2009). Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution. Infobase Publishing.

Vile, J.R. (2010). A Companion to the United States Constitution and Its Amendments. ABC-CLIO.

Civil Liberties During War Losses

However, during war it becomes all too easy to look for convenient ways to disregard even the most important laws. The first, and most dramatic, effect of war is to increase the general fearfulness of a population. Fear and anxiety rocket way up during wartime, and are fueled by all the myriad effects of such conflicts. But another, less-well-understood reaction to war on the part of a both the individual and the nation (and, again, this is not a phenomenon that is in any way unique to the United States) is a marked increase in binary thinking. Humans are programmed to think in oppositionally defined, polar pairs and this is something that we do all the time. But during fear-producing times, this tendency is greatly exacerbated. In peacetime, people are likely to find it easier to consider nuances and shades of meaning, but during armed conflict, no such nuance can be….

Alien and Sedition Acts, http://www.ushistory.org/us/19e.asp . Accessed 3 December 2009.

James Bovard, 2003, October. Wilson's Crusade and Bush's Crusade. http://www.fff.org/freedom/fd0310c.asp . Accessed 3 December 2009.

Steve Connor. Racism and xenophobia linked to biological fear of outsiders in Stone Age. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/racism-and-xenophobia-linked-to-biological-fear-of-outsiders-in-stone-age-566708.html . Accessed 2009 28 November.

Dean Dooley, n.d. Does the war on terror threaten civil liberties in the U.S. http://www.helium.com/items/501123-does-the-war-on-terror-threaten-civil-liberties-in-the-us . Accessed 2009 4 December.

Civil Liberties Post-September 11th September

T) he FBI can now act like a domestic CIA when seeking a criminal conviction. It can obtain a secret warrant from a secret court to gather evidence of crime without ever having to present to the court evidence that the person upon whom it wishes to spy is involved in crime. Moreover, evidence gathered in criminal case can now be more easily shared - without a court order - for "intelligence" purposes with intelligence agencies such as the CIA even if the information is about an American citizen ("Threats to Civil Liberties"). The exercise of rights generates costs, and it is these costs that are often in conflict. Davis and Silver agree that a proper balance must be found between freedom and control and that civil liberties cannot simply be trodden upon. Lewis cites research documenting that the general public's fears had diminished within a month's time, to the point where….

Davis, D. & Sliver, B. "Civil Liberties vs. Security: Public Opinion in the Context of the Terrorist Attacks on America." American Journal of Political Science 48(1) Jan 2005: 28-46. JSTOR. JSTOR. University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. November 29, 2006 http://www.jstor.org .

Lewis, C. "The Clash Between Security and Liberty in the U.S. Response to Terror." Public Administration Review. Jan/Feb 2005: 18-30. ProQuest database. ProQuest. University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. November 29, 2006 http://proquest.umi.com .

Stephens, T. "Civil Liberties after September 11: Background of a Crisis." Guild Practitioner 61(1) Winter 2004: 4. ProQuest database. ProQuest. University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ. November 29, 2006

Civil Liberties the United States Is a

Civil Liberties The United States is a country founded on the notion of protected civil liberties. After all, the pioneers who came to the country in the 18th century were themselves fleeing from persecution and seeking the freedom to practice their religious beliefs and the right to discuss their diverging views in public. Today, these freedoms are protected by law under the Bill of Rights. They serve to protect individual freedoms from encroachment by the government. It is largely through the Bill of Rights that the Constitution limits the government's powers over the rights of individuals (Levy 8). This paper examines the dual role the government takes in approaching such freedoms. First is the passive role, where the law prescribes that the government limit its role in matters of individual civil liberties. This includes the hands-off policy the government is supposed to take in matters such as freedom of the press and privacy….

Getz, Arlene. "Big Brother Goes to Washington." Newsweek. November 15, 2002. Available from LEXIS/NEXIS Academic Universe.

Guernsey, JoAnn Bren. Abortion: Understanding the Controversy. Minneapolis: Lerner Publications Company, 1993.

Johnson, Lyndon B. "To Fulfill these Rights." Speech reprinted in The Affirmative Action Debate. George E. Curry (ed). Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1965.

Kimball, Roger. "The Case for Censorship." Censorship: Opposing Viewpoints. Tamara L. Roleff, ed. San Diego: Greenhaven Press, Inc., 2002.

Civil Liberties Where These Three

Other than that, many dress codes cause too much restriction of freedoms and are more trouble than they are actually worth. There is no reason that a student can't wear a particular color, just because a gang somewhere across the country wears that color. At that rate, no one would be able to wear any color because of various (often mistaken) connotations, which is just silly. When it comes to the court case regarding the woman who wrote about molestation, torture, and murder of children on the Internet, this should certainly be allowed. There were no pictures, and if a person wrote something like this in a book, he or she wouldn't be prosecuted. That's why it's called fiction...and people should be allowed to express themselves through their writing. She didn't force anyone to read it, and if they didn't like it, they could certainly stop reading. What luxurious lives….

Civil Liberties Are Protections From

The main advantage of the convention is that they provide an opportunity for candidates to define themselves in a positive way and for the party to heal itself after a decisive nomination battle. 2. The electoral college is the means by which presidents are actually elected. To win a state's electoral votes, a candidate must have a plurality of votes in that state. Except in two states, the winner takes all. 3. In all but two states, if a candidate has a plurality of votes in a state the winner gets all of that state's electoral votes. 4. Soft money is money used to advance a particular political campaign in such a manner as to skirt the legal limits, such as advertising that does not name a candidate or party, but focuses on a particular issue tied to a particular campaign. 5. Approximately 930 million dollars. 6. The Federal Election Campaign Act is a piece….

Civil Liberties the Bill of Rights Was

Civil Liberties The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. These are the first 10 amendments of the constitution, and were specifically created to facilitate the civil liberties of those who are lawfully included in the United States of America. In some ways, the Bill of Rights descends from the Magna Carta (Author 73), as the latter document preceded the former and was also created to ensure the civil liberties of individuals. Therefore, the origins of the Bill of Rights are intrinsically linked to the notion of not letting the government impose on the rights of individuals within the country. Originally, the Bill of Rights functioned as protection for civilians. Although time and different amendments and various court rulings have helped to mutate the meaning and (perhaps) even the efficacy of the Bill of Rights, its origins were to guarantee civil liberties to U.S. Citizens --….

YOU HAVE THIS INFORMATION, I DO NOT

Civil Liberties in General Has Increased During

civil liberties in general has increased during the last years in the UK and the U.S. IN particular, in concerns related to matters of National Security, the UK as well as the rest of the democratic world will have to place a heavy load on this chapter. The extradition of terror suspects to other countries where there are verifiable guarantees that they will not be tortured. Ever since democratic governments have been under the suspicion of having used ill-treatments in their offensive against terrorism it has become the duty of every self-respecting party or political coalition to have a chapter dedicated to it in its government program. The Coalition's programme for government specifically states that We will seek to extend these guarantees to more countries. In their efforts to guard National Security, democracies are striving to steer free of becoming terror generators themselves. A third party involved and often….

"Human Rights and Criminal Prosecutions: General Principles." CPS.gov.UK Available at: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/human_rights_and_criminal_prosecutions_general_principles/#content Retrieved: May 11th, 2015

"National Security." Available at: http://cameronsdashboard.co.uk/national-security / retrieved: May 12th, 2015

Human Rights Watch.(2002) "United States: Reports of Torture of Al-Qaeda Suspects." Available at: http://www.hrw.org/news/2002/12/26/united-states-reports-torture-al-qaeda-suspects Retrieved: May 11th, 205

American Civil Liberties Union

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) The civil liberties that majority of Americans enjoy today were fought for through tough conditions and in several occasions people got detained and even killed defending the basic civil rights that need to be availed to each American on equal basis. The early 1920 saw the increase in the civil rights movements that wanted the democratic space within the country expanded and guaranteed more than it was at that moment in time. ACLU was founded in 1920 with the headquarters in New York though there are affiliate offices across several other states in the U.S. (American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, 2014). ACLU is regarded as the nation's guardian of liberty with the mission to work on a daily basis within the communities, the courts as well as the legislatures to ensure that the individual rights of each American, as provided for in the constitution and the….

American Civil Liberties Union, (2014). About the ACLU. https://www.aclu.org/about-aclu-0

American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, (2014). About the ACLU of Indiana. http://www.aclu-in.org/images/About/2014-7-10_About_the_ACLU_of_Indiana.pdf

ACLU, (2014). War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing. New York: ACLU Foundation.

One of the fundamental issues taking place in the United States in the present day encompasses the aspect of civil liberties and civil rights for all individuals and groups. A particular aspect in consideration is the lack of fairness and equity for black people in the United States. In the contemporary, there continues to be heated debate and arguments made regarding how the African-American group of people are being treated in the nation. In particular, the issue in this regard encompasses the recent verdict made by a jury ruling that Jeronimo Yanez, a police officer in Minnesota was not guilty for shooting and killing Philando Catile. Imperatively, castile was killed by the police officer during a routine traffic stop while with his girlfriend and child (Miller, 2017). Observed Political Event The observed political event is a political rally and speech made by Valerie, Philando Castile's mother subsequent to the verdict made. Valerie….

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Civil rights can be delineated as the very basic and fundamental rights to be free from unequal treatment, on the basis of particular attributes that are considered important, for instance gender, race, and also disability. The Bill of Rights protects all citizens of the nation against the infringement of their rights and liberties by any entity and even the state, as it is assured in the Constitution. One of the key civil rights discussed and debated in the United States in the present day encompasses the rights of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning community (LGBTQ) (Newton, 2014). Describe the observed political event in detail, including the environment and people involved The event I attended was a political protest that covered the annual gay rights march. In particular, the parade was in search of shedding some light on the gay rights. The individuals that participated in the parade included men,….

American Civil Liberties Union (Friend or Foe) America was founded on the astute principles of democracy and the potential benefits of freedom it derives. America, unlike many of its foreign counterparts has long recognized the benefits of individual rights, freedoms and privileges and has fought to the death to protect them. Currently, America aims to spread these principles of democracy around the globe in an effort to create a better quality of life for all mankind. Even with these lofty and ambitious goals, America, on occasion fails to uphold these principles within its own borders. Too often, America has overlooked the problems prevalent within its own country while criticizing other nations about their own circumstances. Many of these overlooked issues including slavery, discrimination, women's rights and others have left an unfavorable image in American history. In such instances, the American Civil Liberties Union has become the beacon of hope for the American….

1) " American Civil Liberties Union." Social Welfare History Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2011. .

2) "ACLU History | American Civil Liberties Union." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2011. .

3) "ACLU: Accomplishments." Action Center | American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2011. .

4) "American Civil Liberties Union - New World Encyclopedia." Info:Main Page - New World Encyclopedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 21 June 2011.

American Civil Liberties Union Is

(Chambers and Wedel, 2005, p. 65-67) the objectives of the CLU are then applied to specific issues, according to the perceived needs of the issue itself and what the historical best practices are for achieving successful change for any given issue. The application of objectives can be very broad to very specific based on historical best practices according to the CLU and other civil rights movements. If for instance a goal is to reduce the infringement of the constitutional rights of a single individual, who was transgressed against, the legal means might be used as a logical objective, while other goals, such as decreasing the utilization of the U.S. sponsorship of torture and/or rights infringement in the rest of the world, the call is to inform the public of the problem and then allow members and individuals in the organization to write congressmen and utilize the press to broaden….

ACLU: Death Penalty" (ND) Retrieved, June, 1, 2007 at http://www.aclu.org/capital/general/index.html

ACLU: Success Stories" (ND) Retrieved, June, 1, 2007 at http://action.aclu.org/site/PageServer?pagename=AP_success_feedback_main

Chambers, D.E. & Wedel, K.R. (2005) Social Policy and Social Programs: A Method for the Practical Public Policy Analyst, fourth Ed. New York: Allyn and Bacon.

I\'m looking for a unique and fresh essay topic on japanese internment. Any ideas that stand out?

Certainly! Here are a few unique and fresh essay topics on Japanese internment: 1. Exploring the Role of Japanese American Women during Internment: Discuss the experiences, contributions, and resilience of Japanese American women during the internment period, highlighting their role in preserving their communities and influencing social change. 2. The Psychological Impact of Internment on Japanese American Children: Analyze the long-term psychological effects that internment had on Japanese American children and how their experiences shaped their identity, relationships, and future aspirations. 3. Artistic Expression and Resistance in Internment Camps: Examine how interned Japanese Americans utilized various art forms, such as poetry, drawing, and....

Can you offer assistance in devising suitable titles for my essay about Domestic surveillance

1. The Ethical Implications of Domestic Surveillance 2. The Impact of Domestic Surveillance on Civil Liberties 3. Balancing Security and Privacy in Domestic Surveillance 4. The Effectiveness of Domestic Surveillance in Preventing Crime 5. The Role of Technology in Enhancing Domestic Surveillance 6. The Psychological Impact of Living under Constant Surveillance 7. Government Accountability in Domestic Surveillance Programs 8. The Legal Framework Surrounding Domestic Surveillance 9. Public Perception of Domestic Surveillance 10. The Future of Domestic Surveillance in a Digital Age 11. The Controversy Surrounding Domestic Surveillance Practices 12. The Balance Between Security and Personal Freedoms in Domestic Surveillance 13. The Evolution....

Title 1: Domestic Surveillance: Delving into the Complexities of State Surveillance of Citizens This title offers a comprehensive overview of the essay's focus on domestic surveillance, highlighting the multifaceted nature of the topic and the intricate relationship between state surveillance and citizens' rights. Title 2: Unraveling the Architecture of Domestic Surveillance: A Critical Examination of Government Monitoring Practices This title emphasizes the underlying structure and mechanisms of domestic surveillance, suggesting a deep exploration of how governments implement and execute surveillance programs. Title 3: Domestic Surveillance: Navigating the Fine Line between Security and Privacy in the Digital Age This title captures the delicate balance between the....

Need help shaping my Examining the Israeli-palestine Conflict:the oppressed become the oppressor thesis statement into a clear argument. Any suggestions?

Thesis Statement: The Israeli-Palestinian conflict exemplifies the dynamic of "the oppressed become the oppressor," where the once-oppressed Israelis, after gaining statehood, have now become the oppressors of the Palestinians. Argument Outline: Introduction: Begin with a brief historical overview of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the establishment of Israel in 1948. Highlight the initial displacement and oppression of Palestinians by the Israeli state. Historical Oppression of Palestinians: Describe the systematic discrimination and marginalization of Palestinians under Israeli occupation, including land confiscation, restrictions on movement, and economic deprivation. Discuss the human rights violations committed by the Israeli military and security forces. Provide evidence from historical documents and....

Criminal Justice

Civil Liberties: Jones case is one of the major recent cases regarding civil liberties that basically examined whether the government requires a search warrant before placing a GPS device on…

American History

Civil Liberties, a Price to Pay for Safety? Terrorism is something that a country or a nation has to deal with at some time or another. The United States experienced…

Business - Law

However, during war it becomes all too easy to look for convenient ways to disregard even the most important laws. The first, and most dramatic, effect of war is…

T) he FBI can now act like a domestic CIA when seeking a criminal conviction. It can obtain a secret warrant from a secret court to gather evidence of…

Civil Liberties The United States is a country founded on the notion of protected civil liberties. After all, the pioneers who came to the country in the 18th century were…

Research Proposal

Other than that, many dress codes cause too much restriction of freedoms and are more trouble than they are actually worth. There is no reason that a student…

The main advantage of the convention is that they provide an opportunity for candidates to define themselves in a positive way and for the party to heal itself…

Civil Liberties The Bill of Rights was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1791. These are the first 10 amendments of the constitution, and were specifically created to facilitate…

civil liberties in general has increased during the last years in the UK and the U.S. IN particular, in concerns related to matters of National Security, the UK…

Research Paper

Political Science / Politics

One of the fundamental issues taking place in the United States in the present day encompasses the aspect of civil liberties and civil rights for all individuals and groups.…

Civil rights can be delineated as the very basic and fundamental rights to be free from unequal treatment, on the basis of particular attributes that are considered important, for…

(Chambers and Wedel, 2005, p. 65-67) the objectives of the CLU are then applied to specific issues, according to the perceived needs of the issue itself and what…

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Civil Liberties — Civil Rights Vs Civil Liberties

Civil Rights Vs Civil Liberties

Categories: Civil Liberties Civil Rights

About this sample

Words: 517 |

Published: Feb 12, 2019

Words: 517 | Page: 1 | 3 min read

Hook Examples for Civil Rights Movement Essay

Redefining Equality: In the heart of the Civil Rights Movement, America experienced a profound transformation. Join us as we journey through the tumultuous era when a nation questioned its commitment to equality and justice for all.
Jefferson’s Words, America’s Struggle: When Thomas Jefferson penned the words “all men are created equal,” he ignited a vision that would shape a nation. But how did this vision evolve into the Civil Rights Movement, and what lessons can we draw from this journey toward equality?
Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights: In the intricate web of rights and freedoms, where does one draw the line between civil liberties and civil rights? As we explore this distinction, we’ll uncover the pivotal moments that propelled the Civil Rights Movement forward.
The March to Freedom: The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s was a relentless march towards justice. From Rosa Parks to Martin Luther King Jr., brave individuals made indelible marks in history. Let’s revisit the milestones that shaped a nation’s conscience.
From Jefferson to Today: Our journey through civil rights and liberties reveals that the struggle for equality has evolved with the times. Explore how modern issues like same-sex marriage and gun control continue to redefine our understanding of freedom and justice.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof Ernest (PhD)

Verified writer

Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 1081 words

3 pages / 1488 words

2 pages / 1132 words

6 pages / 3292 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Civil Liberties

The legality of stop-and-frisk practices remains a topic of significant controversy, with differing viewpoints among scholars, policymakers, and the general public. While stop-and-frisk practices have been upheld by the courts [...]

The issue of sedition bills during times of war has been a contentious and complex topic throughout history. The tension between national security and civil liberties has often led to the enactment of sedition bills aimed at [...]

The conservative politicians of the Roaring 20s left a complex legacy through their policies and administrations. The creation of the FBI, despite its positive contributions to law enforcement, raised concerns about civil [...]

Power is a multifaceted concept that is central to our understanding of numerous social, political, and economic phenomena. Yet, despite its apparent centrality to human affairs, scholars across disciplines have struggled to [...]

Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. (1982). Personal Justice Denied: Report of the Commission on Wartime Relocation and Internment of Civilians. Civil Liberties Public Education Fund.Daniels, R. [...]

The primary role of the military is the protection of territorial sovereignty. This does not preclude it from being involved in operations other than war to enhance total national defence. The employment of the Infantry [...]

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

Instructions Followed To The Letter
Deadlines Met At Every Stage
Unique And Plagiarism Free

Essay On Civil Liberties

Civil Liberties According to the video by Crash Course, “Civil Liberties are the freedom placed on government. 2 Basically, they are things the government can not do that might interfere with your personal freedom. 3 And, Civil Rights are curbs on the power of majorities to make decisions that would benefit some at the expense of others. 4 Basically, Civil Rights are guarantees of equal citizenship and they mean that citizens are protected from discrimination by majorities.” Civil rights are established by federal government, and these includes rights to be free from unequal treatment on certain characteristics like race, color, gender and disability. On the other hand, Civil rights include certain basic rights and freedoms like right to privacy, right to free speech, right to marry, right to vote and so on that are identified in the bill of rights. This is the responsibility of every institutions of the national government to safeguard the rights of citizens, the United State Supreme Court holds the great power in decision making process and controlling civil rights and civil liberties in American government. Supreme Court has ruled on them in several occasions. According to the book ‘We the …show more content…

People often classify you based on your color, religion and gender. Profiling impacts on law enforcement decision because a law that is appropriate for one group of people may not be appropriate to other. So, the law enforcement committee might have to act in different way. For example, black mates are stereotyped to be engaged in drug deal, taking this consideration, if the law enforcement committee makes separate law for black mates, they might come up with different way of smuggling drugs. Yes, there are several potentialities of violating right to freedom, right to speech, and right to expression of thought. In Shelly V. Kraemer case (1948), the decision held that "racially restrictive covenants" in property deeds are unenforceable

EEOC V. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores

While civil liberties help people to avoid government using too much of their power and control people’s lives, civil rights use the help of government to protect them from discrimination. Overall, comparead to civil liberties, civil rights issues are quite straight forward. However, controversy still rounded-up if people’s race or religous get involed in the decision making process in which employing people. One typical example is EEOC v. Abercrombie & Fitch Stores, Inc. The case happened in 2013, when Samantha Elauf, a Muslim woman who was 18 then, got denied for the sales staff position in Abercrombie & Fitch Stores.

How Did Little Rock Nine Impact Society

Civil rights means everyone should be treated equally no matter their race or color. Many people fought for civil rights, and it is an important part of American history. Everyday black people struggled to get an education. Civil rights made it possible for black people to go to school. Little Rock Nine changed the course of U.S. history.

Scott Vs Kraemer

The issue of Civil Rights goes back very far in history. In fact, it goes all the way to 1857, with the case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford. In this time slavery was very common and free black men and women were basically unheard of. Scott and his wife decided to sue for his freedom because

Civil Liberties: Abridging The Bill Of Rights

Civil liberties are defined as “the personal guarantees and freedoms that the government cannot abridge by law, constitution, or judicial interpretation.” Civil liberties incorporate specific rights such as the right to free speech, press, assembly, and petition contained in the First Amendment. The United States Constitution or more specifically the Bill of Rights is the foundation for the impartment and preservation of civil liberties in America. The Bill of Rights consists of the first ten Amendments of the United States Constitution, these Amendments guarantee an individual with basic rights and liberties that will not be infringed upon by the government.

Lee Resolution Definition

Civil rights are those that are granted by a government for the protection of its citizens in respect to guaranteeing fairness and checking discrimination. Civil liberties are the basic rights guaranteed to all citizens in a county without any further

Bill Of Rights Dbq Essay

The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. It was created to protect certain rights that were not obviously granted and protected in the Constitution. It does this extremely well. Philosopher John Locke spoke about how the people feared a government that was too powerful, they did not want a tyranny. They had just escaped the rule of King George and the English monarchy and they wanted a system of government with limited power.

How Did Bloody Sunday Affect Civil Rights

Civil rights refers to fighting for equal rights between blacks and whites. It is an important part of history. From time to time, people have been fighting for civil rights for blacks in whites in the mid 1900’s. In fact, Bloody Sunday was probably one of the most important events to have an impact on history for civil rights. Everyday, people struggle to be treated equally and civil rights make it possible for everyone black or white to be treated equally.

Rights is the power or privilege granted to people either by an argument among themselves or by law. Major events that occurred throughout history enabled Americans to obtain wanted rights and freedoms and set up a baseline for the formation of the United States. These gained freedoms and rights promoted life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for Americans. Events such as the American Revolution, the creation of the Bill of Rights, the Age of Expansionism, and the Civil War enabled a positive change in rights and freedoms for Americans. Rights were positively changed during the American Revolution the spread of ideas and the solidification of rights and freedom from Britain by the Declaration of Independence.

How Civil Liberties Have Affected My Life

Civil Rights ensure the equal treatment of each and every citizen and prevents them form being discriminated when seeking things such as employment or housing

Racial Profiling Pros And Cons

Written Task 2 Racial profiling as defined by the National Institute of Justice is “a practice that targets people for suspicion of crime based on their race, ethnicity, religion or national origin” (National Institute of Justice). There are two different kinds of racial profiling according to the primary text. There is what can be called "Hard" profiling, that sees race as the only factor in assessing criminal suspiciousness.

Explain Why The Government Must Be Protected By The Bill Of Rights Essay

Who should be protected by the bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is to protect U.S. citizens from the misuse of power that may be committed by the government in different areas. It clearly restrict the three branches of government laid out in the Constitution. In The Bill of Rights, Reprinted from New York University Law Review, Hugo Black states that “The bill of rights protects people by clearly stating what government can’t do by describing ‘the procedures that government must follow when bringing its powers to bear against any person with a view to depriving him of his life, liberty, or property (Black 1960).’” The first 10 amendment either says what the government cannot do or limits its powers by providing undeniable procedures that it

Civil Liberties Vs. Civil Rights

Sometimes the Supreme Court will revert the rulings of these lower courts but more than often they’ll stay with the original ruling or they might not even look at the case. My thoughts on civil rights and civil liberties are simple I feel as though they worked for people in the past but they aren’t for today's times. I think they’re slowly dismantling and one day the government is going to have to revise to fit today’s times if not it could mean the collapse of the United States government as we know

Research Paper On Racial Profiling

Racial Profiling is one of the many areas covered in racial discrimination. It refers to the discriminatory practice, especially by law enforcement officials which targets individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual 's race, ethnicity, religion or national origin. Racial profiling has been and is still an issue today in almost every part of the United States. It is seen in different situations whereby people are treated very unfairly or branded criminals and suspects without any form of evidence It is a type of racial discrimination seen in all places though racial discrimination touches many areas like award of government benefits which is unequally shared as it should ,but at times based on who the person is. For example, I was once a victim in the

Impact Of Bloody Sunday On Civil Rights

Political and civil rights: civil and political rights.

In short, exercising our rights are citizens. Civil rights are rights to have original thoughts of your own, expression of those thoughts, religion freedom and movement. These are old rights and goes back to the days of Magna Carta. These rights deal with one’s identity. Despite of race, caste, creed and community, any organization should keep their hands off and allow people to express these rights.

More about Essay On Civil Liberties

Senate Passes Two-Year Extension of Surveillance Law Just After It Expired

The law lapsed only briefly after a late-night deal that allowed votes on privacy advocates’ proposed changes, all of which were defeated.

Senator Chuck Schumer, the majority leader, holding papers and standing next to an American flag.

By Charlie Savage and Luke Broadwater

Reporting from Washington

The Senate early on Saturday approved an extension of a warrantless surveillance law, moving to renew it shortly after it had expired and sending President Biden legislation that national security officials say is crucial to fighting terrorism but that privacy advocates decry as a threat to Americans’ rights.

The law, known as Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA, had appeared all but certain to lapse over the weekend, with senators unable for most of Friday to reach a deal on whether to consider changes opposed by national security officials and hawks.

But after hours of negotiation, the Senate abruptly reconvened late on Friday for a flurry of votes in which those proposed revisions were rejected, one by one, and early on Saturday the bill, which extends Section 702 for two years, won approval, 60 to 34.

“We have good news for America’s national security,” Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic majority leader, said as he stood during the late-night session to announce the agreement to complete work on the bill. “Allowing FISA to expire would have been dangerous.”

In a statement, Attorney General Merrick B. Garland praised the bill’s passage, calling Section 702 “indispensable to the Justice Department’s work to protect the American people from terrorist, nation-state, cyber and other threats.”

Ahead of final passage, the Senate rapidly voted down a series of amendments proposed by privacy-minded lawmakers. Approving any of them would have sent the bill back to the House, allowing the statute to lapse for a more significant period.

“Any amendment added to this bill at this moment is the equivalent of killing the bill,” warned Senator Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia and the chairman of the Intelligence Committee.

While the program has legal authority to continue operating until April 2025 regardless of whether Congress extended the law, the White House sent a statement to senators on Friday warning them that a “major provider has indicated it intends to cease collection on Monday” and that another said it was considering stopping collection. The statement did not identify them, and the Justice Department declined to say more.

The statement also said that the administration was confident that the FISA court would order any such companies to resume complying with the program, but that there could be gaps in collection in the meantime — and if a rash of providers challenged the program, the “situation could turn very bad and dangerous very quickly.” It urged senators to pass the House bill without any amendments before the midnight deadline.

But Senator Rand Paul, the libertarian-minded Kentucky Republican, rejected the rationale and said the Senate should be allowed to debate changes even if it would prompt a brief delay.

“This is an argument that has been forced upon us by the supporters of FISA who want no debate and they want no restrictions,” he said. “They want no warrants, and they want nothing to protect the Americans.”

In the end, the bill received the 60th vote it needed to pass just before midnight. But in a twist, after all the urgency, the Senate kept the vote open for more than 40 additional minutes to accommodate Senator Marsha Blackburn, Republican of Tennessee, who finally showed up in the nearly empty chamber and added a “no” vote.

The defeated amendments included a measure that would have required the government to get a warrant before viewing the contents of Americans’ communications swept up in the program. It was defeated, 42 to 50.

Privacy advocates have long sought some form of warrant requirement, which national security officials oppose, saying it would cripple the program’s effectiveness. A similar amendment in the House had failed just barely this week on a 212-to-212 tie vote .

The Senate also rejected a proposal to eliminate a provision added by the House that expands the type of service providers that can be compelled to participate in the program. The measure is aimed at certain data centers for cloud computing that the FISA court ruled in 2022 fell outside the current definition of which services the statute covers, according to people familiar with the matter.

Privacy advocates have warned that it is too broadly worded, leaving open the potential for abuses. Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, criticized the provision as “horribly drafted, sweeping new surveillance authorities that we will surely regret.”

But Mr. Warner pledged to work with colleagues to “further refine” the definition in another bill later this year, and the amendment to strip the provision was defeated, 34-58.

And the Senate rejected a proposal by Mr. Paul to bar the government from buying personal information about Americans from data brokers if it would need a warrant to compel a company to turn over that information directly. The House last week passed a separate bill, titled the Fourth Amendment Is Not For Sale Act, containing that same measure.

Privacy advocates, who had spent more than a year pushing for a warrant requirement only to see the bill instead expand the reach of the surveillance program, expressed deep frustration. Among them was Elizabeth Goitein of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

“Although some senators fought valiantly to protect Americans’ civil liberties, they could not overcome the barrage of false and misleading statements from the administration and surveillance hawks on the congressional intelligence committees,” she said. “This is a truly shameful episode in the history of the U.S. Congress, and sooner or later, the American people will pay the price.”

Section 702 allows the government to collect, from U.S. companies like AT&T and Google, the messages of foreigners abroad who have been targeted for foreign intelligence or counterterrorism purposes without a warrant — even when they are communicating with Americans.

The idea is that in the internet era, foreigners’ communications are often handled by domestic companies. But the tool is controversial because the government also sweeps up messages of Americans to and from those foreign targets.

Civil libertarians in Congress have long raised concerns about the impact of Section 702 on Americans’ privacy rights. In recent years, they have been bolstered by the hard-right faction of Republicans that has closely aligned itself with former President Donald J. Trump’s hostility to the F.B.I.

The law traces back to a warrantless wiretapping program that President George W. Bush secretly created after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. It violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which requires warrants for national security wiretapping on domestic soil.

After the program came to light, Congress in 2007 legalized a form of it in a short-lived law called the Protect America Act, carving out an exception to FISA’s warrant requirement for wiretapping on American soil that targets foreigners abroad. Lawmakers enacted Section 702 the following year as a more enduring version, and extended it in 2012 and 2018.

Much of the debate about renewing it again has centered on the fact that under the current rules, intelligence analysts and F.B.I. agents may search the raw database of Section 702 intercepts for Americans’ information. If there is a hit, then officials can read the private messages of Americans that were collected without a warrant and use it for investigations.

While there are strict rules for when such queries are permissible, in recent years F.BI. officials have repeatedly conducted searches that were later found to have violated those standards, including because they lacked sufficient justification or were too broadly defined. Problematic queries have included searches using the identifiers of a lawmaker , Black Lives Matter protesters and Jan. 6 Capitol riot suspects .

In response, the F.B.I. has tightened its systems since 2021, and the bill codified many such restrictions into law.

The law had again been set to expire in December, but Congress voted to extend it until Friday to give itself more time to consider proposed changes. But the debate roiled Congress, especially in the often dysfunctional House, and plans to bring it up in the House collapsed repeatedly, leading to last-minute gamesmanship.

Before the drama in the Senate, the bill came back from another seeming breakdown a week earlier in the House. As lawmakers were preparing to vote on whether to bring up the bill, Mr. Trump urged supporters to “KILL FISA.”

Mr. Trump’s blast was part of his yearslong effort to stoke grievances about national security agencies. His dissatisfaction stems from an inspector general’s finding that the F.B.I. botched applications for traditional FISA warrants to target a former campaign adviser as part of the investigation into ties between Mr. Trump’s 2016 campaign and Russia.

While that was a different kind of national security surveillance — traditional FISA requires warrants to target people on American soil — 19 hard-right Republicans blocked the House from taking up the Section 702 legislation.

Two days later, Speaker Mike Johnson revived it, cutting the extension to two years from five — meaning Mr. Trump would be in charge when it came up again if he won the 2024 election — and hard-right Republicans allowed the House to vote on the bill.

Charlie Savage writes about national security and legal policy. More about Charlie Savage

Luke Broadwater covers Congress with a focus on congressional investigations. More about Luke Broadwater

A Divided Congress: Latest News and Analysis

Ukraine Aid Bill: The House took a critical step toward approving a long-stalled package of aid to Ukraine, Israel and other American allies, as Democrats supplied the crucial votes to push the legislation past Republican opposition for consideration on the floor .

A Tough Job : The Republican speaker Mike Johnson’s problems in advancing an aid package for Ukraine arise from previous efforts to placate the far right. Now the far right members are seeking to use the leverage they won .

TikTok Bill: The House made another push to force through legislation that would require the sale of TikTok by its Chinese owner or ban the app in the United States by packaging the measure with aid to Ukraine and Israel .

Surveillance Bill: Senate leaders of both parties are urging their colleagues to renew a warrantless surveillance law before it expires. But the program would continue after any such lapse — with some caveats.

Mayorkas Impeachment: Republicans say the Senate’s quick dismissa l of charges against Alejandro Mayorkas, the homeland security secretary, sets a dangerous precedent. Democrats say the mistake would have been to treat the case seriously .

Campus Antisemitism Hearing: Columbia’s president, Nemat Shafik, agreed that the university needed to take a tougher stance on antisemitism, in response to harsh questioning from a Republican-led House committee .

Supreme Court allows enforcement of Idaho ban on gender-affirming care for transgender minors

WASHINGTON — A divided Supreme Court on Monday allowed Idaho to mostly enforce a law that bans gender-affirming health care for transgender teenagers.

Granting an emergency request filed by Idaho officials, the court said the law enacted, which was last year, could go into effect statewide but cannot be applied against the two plaintiffs who challenged it.

The court's three liberal justices objected to the decision, saying the law should have remained blocked in full.

U.S. District Court Judge Lynn Winmill ruled in December that the state could not enforce the law while litigation continues. The state has appealed to the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has yet to rule.

The law, like measures enacted by other states, prevents the use of what Winmill called “generally accepted medical treatment” for transgender minors, including puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgical procedures.

Officials subsequently turned to the Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, saying that the injunction was too broad and that the law should be blocked only for the two plaintiffs in the lawsuit.

Conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, in an opinion explaining his vote to allow the law to be enforced, said the lower court had gone “much further” than needed in putting the entire law on hold. He noted, for example, that Winmill blocked a provision that barred surgery “even though no party before the court had sought access to those surgeries.”

The Supreme Court's intervention should be viewed as a "welcome development," Gorsuch said.

In a dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said that the case “presents numerous reasons for exercising restraint” but that instead, the court had decided to step in and was guilty of "micromanaging" the lower courts.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs, two transgender teens, said it was necessary that the judge blocked the entire law because if it went into effect, it might imperil all gender-affirming health care in the state.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the teens, said in a statement that the decision was an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state" that "allows the state to shut down the care that thousands of families rely on while sowing further confusion and disruption."

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, said in a statement that the state had a duty to protect children from "life-altering drugs and procedures."

He said minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria "deserve love, support, and medical care rooted in biological reality."

The plaintiffs, named in court papers only as Pam Poe and Jane Doe, say the law, called the Vulnerable Child Protection Act, among other things violates the Constitution's 14th Amendment by discriminating on the basis of sex.

Poe is a 16-year-old transgender girl who has been prescribed puberty blockers. Doe is a 17-year-old transgender girl who was also prescribed puberty blockers and has begun hormone therapy.

Both say medical treatment has improved their mental health.

More than 20 states have enacted similar bans , according to the Movement Advancement Project, an LGBTQ rights think tank.

The Supreme Court is likely to weigh in on the broader legal question in the future as challenges to the laws make their way through the court system.

In the coming weeks, appeals concerning similar laws in Tennessee and Kentucky will be up for consideration by the justices.

Lawrence Hurley covers the Supreme Court for NBC News.

New Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Montana’s Refusal to Update Transgender People’s Birth Certificates & Driver’s Licenses

HELENA, Mont. – Today two transgender women filed a class-action lawsuit against the State of Montana and various state agencies challenging a 2022 policy that categorically bars transgender people from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. The lawsuit also challenges a policy that makes it impossible for transgender Montanans to update the sex listed on their driver’s licenses.

In 2021, Montana enacted SB 280, a law that only allows for changes in sex designation on birth certificates “on receipt of a court order indicating that the sex of a person has been changed by surgical procedure.” Two transgender people challenged the law in state court which soon issued a preliminary injunction blocking the state from enforcing SB 280. Ignoring the court, the Montana Department of Public Health and Human Services (DPHHS) issued an emergency rule in 2022, which it would later convert to a permanent rule, implementing a total ban on changes to sex designations on birth certificates.

The lawsuit filed in state court today challenges that 2022 policy, as well as a subsequently-adopted policy and practice of the Motor Vehicle Division to no longer allow changes to the sex designations on driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP, also seek a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of these regulations, policies, and practices.

Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik , a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, says, “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, is forcing me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I am being forced to use a birth certificate that is inaccurate and that places me at risk of discrimination and harassment whenever I have to present it. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male.”

“Once again the State of Montana has chosen to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana . “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where Courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.”

“Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity violates their right to privacy and is unjust discrimination and unconstitutionally compelled speech,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. The state has repeatedly tried to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity, and we’ll continue to fight this baseless policy until no transgender person is denied this fundamental right.”

The complaint filed today can be found here .

Stay Informed

Every month, you'll receive regular roundups of the most important civil rights and civil liberties developments. Remember: a well-informed citizenry is the best defense against tyranny.

By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.

Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release

LGBTQ Rights
Transgender People and ID
Transgender Rights

ACLU Comment on U.S. Department of Education’s Final Title IX Rule

Ohio Court Temporarily Blocks Gender-Affirming Care Ban from Taking Effect

Fourth Circuit Rejects West Virginia Law Barring Transgender Girls From Student Athletics

Supreme Court Narrows Injunction Against Idaho Trans Care Ban

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties what Difference

This essay about the distinction between civil rights and civil liberties provides a straightforward breakdown of these two foundational principles in American democracy. Civil liberties are outlined as personal freedoms protected by the Constitution, ensuring the government doesn’t interfere with individual rights like speech, religion, and privacy. In contrast, civil rights focus on preventing discrimination and ensuring equal treatment for all individuals in public spaces and under the law, irrespective of race, gender, or other characteristics. The essay emphasizes the real-world implications of understanding these differences, especially in legal and societal contexts. It also touches on the historical struggles and ongoing challenges in protecting these rights, underscoring their significance in ensuring freedom and equality for all.

How it works

Ever find yourself scratching your head over the difference between civil rights and civil liberties? You’re not alone. Despite sounding like two sides of the same coin, they stand for different but equally crucial principles that guard our freedoms and rights in the U.S. Let’s cut through the legal jargon and get to the heart of what these terms really mean, in plain English.

Civil liberties are those freedoms that you’re born with, protected by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

They’re your personal bubble against government intrusion. Think of them as your freedom toolkit: speech, religion, privacy, and the right to a fair trial are all part of the package. Civil liberties make sure the government minds its own business, letting you live your life without unwelcome interference.

On the flip side, civil rights are all about making sure everyone gets a fair shake in public life, regardless of their background. These rights fight against discrimination and aim to ensure equality in public spaces and by the law. Whether it’s voting, education, or employment, civil rights say you should have the same opportunities as anyone else, no matter your race, gender, or any other characteristic.

Why does this matter in real life? Let’s say you’re arguing that your social media rant should be protected from government censorship – you’re championing your civil liberties. But if you’re advocating for equal treatment at work, that’s a civil rights conversation. The distinction might seem slight, but it’s huge when it comes to understanding and defending your rights.

The history of these rights in America is filled with struggles and victories. The civil rights movement of the 1960s, for instance, wasn’t just a call for action; it was a demand for equality, challenging racial segregation and discrimination. Fast forward to today, and the battle continues but with new frontiers like digital privacy and LGBTQ+ rights, reminding us that the fight for equality and freedom is ever-evolving.

Understanding the difference between civil rights and civil liberties isn’t just academic—it’s about knowing your rights and how they apply to your life. It’s about recognizing when those rights are threatened and knowing how to stand up for them. As we navigate today’s complex world, understanding these distinctions helps us appreciate the depth of our freedoms and the ongoing effort required to protect and extend them to everyone, without exception.

So, next time you hear about a civil liberties or civil rights issue, you’ll know exactly what’s at stake. It’s about making sure everyone can live freely and fairly, in a society that values and protects those principles. And that’s something worth understanding and fighting for, don’t you think?

Cite this page

Civil Rights And Civil Liberties What difference. (2024, Apr 14). Retrieved from https://papersowl.com/examples/civil-rights-and-civil-liberties-what-difference/

"Civil Rights And Civil Liberties What difference." PapersOwl.com , 14 Apr 2024, https://papersowl.com/examples/civil-rights-and-civil-liberties-what-difference/

PapersOwl.com. (2024). Civil Rights And Civil Liberties What difference . [Online]. Available at: https://papersowl.com/examples/civil-rights-and-civil-liberties-what-difference/ [Accessed: 20 Apr. 2024]

"Civil Rights And Civil Liberties What difference." PapersOwl.com, Apr 14, 2024. Accessed April 20, 2024. https://papersowl.com/examples/civil-rights-and-civil-liberties-what-difference/

"Civil Rights And Civil Liberties What difference," PapersOwl.com , 14-Apr-2024. [Online]. Available: https://papersowl.com/examples/civil-rights-and-civil-liberties-what-difference/. [Accessed: 20-Apr-2024]

Don't let plagiarism ruin your grade

Hire a writer to get a unique paper crafted to your needs.

Our writers will help you fix any mistakes and get an A+!

Please check your inbox.

You can order an original essay written according to your instructions.

Trusted by over 1 million students worldwide

1. Tell Us Your Requirements

2. Pick your perfect writer

3. Get Your Paper and Pay

Hi! I'm Amy, your personal assistant!

Don't know where to start? Give me your paper requirements and I connect you to an academic expert.

short deadlines

100% Plagiarism-Free

Certified writers

IMAGES

Civil Liberties: Freedom of the Media
Civil rights and liberties essay.docx
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Essay .docx
Main Points of Civil Liberties Act 1988 Essay Example
Sample essay on civil liberties
Can the Government Limit Civil Liberties in Wartime Essay Example

COMMENTS

What Are Civil Liberties?
Explain the Civil War origin of concern that the states should respect civil liberties. The U.S. Constitution —in particular, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights—protects the freedoms and rights of individuals. It does not limit this protection just to citizens or adults; instead, in most cases, the Constitution simply ...
Civil Liberties and Civil Rights in America
This essay about civil liberties and civil rights in America offers a straightforward look into the freedoms and protections that are central to the nation's identity. It distinguishes between civil liberties, which protect individuals from government interference, and civil rights, which safeguard against discrimination. ...
Essay on Civil Liberties
Civil Liberties And Civil Rights. Civil Liberties Webster defines civil liberty as a freedom from arbitrary governmental interference specifically by denial of governmental power, and in the United States especially as guaranteed by the bill of rights. Civil liberties are the basic rights, and freedoms that are due to every American citizen.
Background Essay: The Supreme Court and the Bill of Rights
During the last 60 years, the Supreme Court has become perhaps the central defender of civil liberties, or freedoms that government is not allowed to restrict, in the United States. This role has been a relatively recent development that marked a distinct change from the Founding, when the Court mostly addressed government powers.
Civil liberties and civil rights
Unit test. Level up on all the skills in this unit and collect up to 1,300 Mastery points! How does the Constitution protect civil liberties and rights? How have different Supreme Court interpretations of different amendments impacted and defined civil rights in the U.S.?
Civil Liberties Essay
Civil Liberties Essay. From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust.
Balancing Act: Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Explained
This essay about civil rights and civil liberties clarifies the distinct yet interconnected roles these principles play in American democracy. It contrasts civil liberties, which protect individuals from government overreach, with civil rights, which guard against discrimination based on protected characteristics. Through examples like freedom ...
National Government, Crisis, and Civil Liberties
All branches of government are constitutionally obligated to protect individual liberties while maintaining public safety. During times of imminent threat or military action, however, it is challenging to determine how to maintain balance between civil liberty and national security. The Continental Congress relied on a volunteer army during the ...
War and Civil Liberty
War and Civil Liberty. By Robert M.S. McDonald, Ph.D. John Locke, whose political philosophy helped to inspire and justify the American Revolution, explained that the first people to form civilizations left behind the perfect freedom of the state of nature in order to secure the liberties that mattered most.
Civil Liberties
Explore the moral basis of controversial claims of civil rights and liberties by carefully considering the evidence and reasons presented by notable thinkers and in groundbreaking Supreme Court opinions. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Right...
Civil liberties in the United States
An exploration of the fundamental civil liberties protected by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to privacy. The essay would also discuss landmark court decisions and contemporary challenges to these liberties. More free essay examples are accessible at PapersOwl about Civil Rights Movement topic.
Civil Liberties Essay
Civil Liberties Essay. As Benjamin Franklin once said "A people who would trade liberty for security deserve neither". I totally agree in that we as the people of the United States should not ask for greater safety at the price of liberty. I feel that the government does not have the power to limit our First Amendment rights.
Essays on Civil Liberties
In this essay, I will argue that, in order to maximize the well-being of a state's citizens, the key focus on liberal theory, liberals and their systems should value both negative and positive liberties. This is due to negative liberty's approach towards limiting the externalities... Civil Liberties Liberty. 15.
Civil Liberties Essays: Examples, Topics, & Outlines
Civil Liberties. PAGES 2 WORDS 716. Civil Liberties: Jones case is one of the major recent cases regarding civil liberties that basically examined whether the government requires a search warrant before placing a GPS device on a vehicle and tracking the movements of that vehicle. The ruling by the Supreme Court in this case upholds the ...
Essay On Civil Liberties
Essay On Civil Liberties. 709 Words3 Pages. Civil Liberties Some would argue that people would rather have security instead of liberty. But if that were true, why would we risk our lives in a war to ensure our freedoms? It's because our rights are some of the most important things in our lives that some of us would die for.
Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties
The terms "civil rights" and "civil liberties" are often used interchangeably, but their meanings are distinct. Civil liberties are freedoms guaranteed to you by the Constitution to protect you from tyranny. One key civil liberty, for example, is the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. Civil rights, in contrast, are the legal rights detailed in federal laws and statutes that protect ...
Civil Rights Vs Civil Liberties: [Essay Example], 517 words
Civil liberties are viewed as basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed. Either written within the bill of rights or the U.S. Constitution. They were intended to protect freedoms that governments may not legally intrude on. For example, the First Amendment denies the government the power to prohibit "the free exercise" of religion and ...
Civil Rights Vs. Civil Liberties
This essay about civil rights and civil liberties distinguishes between the two crucial concepts that are foundational to democratic societies. It explains civil rights as the guarantees of equal social opportunities and protection under the law, irrespective of race, religion, or other personal characteristics.
Civil Liberties in the UK
The ECHR was integrated into the UK law under the Human Rights Act 1998. Conclusively, human rights and civil liberties ought to have exceptions - the necessity for national security, the pursuit of grave felony and public order are exceptions to the right of personal liberty of every person. In addition, every nation has latitude in ...
Essay On Civil Liberties
Essay On Civil Liberties. 1030 Words5 Pages. Civil Liberties According to the video by Crash Course, "Civil Liberties are the freedom placed on government. 2 Basically, they are things the government can not do that might interfere with your personal freedom. 3 And, Civil Rights are curbs on the power of majorities to make decisions that ...
Essay
Antisemitism and calls for genocide have no place at a university. My priority has been the safety and security of our community, but that leaves plenty of room for robust disagreement and debate.
Clarifying the Concepts: Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties
This essay about the difference between civil rights and civil liberties elucidates their distinct roles within democratic societies. Civil liberties are defined as fundamental freedoms shielded from government interference, such as freedom of speech and religion. They represent the individual's right to act without undue governmental intrusion.
Senate Passes Two-Year Extension of FISA Surveillance Law Just After It
The Senate early on Saturday approved an extension of a warrantless surveillance law, moving to renew it shortly after it had expired and sending President Biden legislation that national security ...
Supreme Court allows enforcement of Idaho ban on gender-affirming care
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the teens, said in a statement that the decision was an "awful result for transgender youth and their families across the state" that "allows ...
Difference Between Civil Rights And Civil Liberties
The essay highlights how civil liberties act as a shield against governmental overreach, while civil rights function as a tool for achieving equity, with both playing critical roles in fostering a just and equitable society. Through examining their interplay, the essay underscores the importance of understanding these concepts not just in legal ...
New Class-Action Lawsuit Challenges Montana's Refusal to Update
The plaintiffs, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP, also seek a preliminary injunction blocking enforcement of these regulations, policies, and practices. ... essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. The ...
Civil Rights and Civil Liberties what Difference
This essay about the distinction between civil rights and civil liberties provides a straightforward breakdown of these two foundational principles in American democracy. Civil liberties are outlined as personal freedoms protected by the Constitution, ensuring the government doesn't interfere with individual rights like speech, religion, and ...