Changes

== "the Constitution" ==

== "the Constitution" ==

Justice Kennedy's reference to "the Constitution" is to the United States Constitution, which was written during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, completed in September, and sent to the 13 states (former colonies) for ratification by at least 9 of them.  The "Federalist Papers" were written anonymously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in order to persuade the people of the large state of New York to ratify (approve and adopt) the Constitution.  We now know which person authored which Federalist Paper (each one was published separately in a New York newspaper as the debate progressed), and James Madison is indicated in the above quote as being the author of the 51st Federalist Paper.

Justice Kennedy's reference to "the Constitution" is to the United States Constitution, which was written during the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia during the hot summer of 1787, completed in September, and sent to the 13 States (former colonies) for ratification by at least 9 of them.  The "Federalist Papers" were written anonymously by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay in order to persuade the people of the large state of New York to ratify (approve and adopt) the Constitution.  We now know which person authored which Federalist Paper (each one was published separately in a New York newspaper as the debate progressed), and James Madison is indicated in the above quote as being the author of the 51st Federalist Paper.

The Federalist Papers are important today for their usefulness in interpreting what the Constitution meant at the time (the "original meaning" of the Constitution).  Today "judicial activists" and "loose constructionists" think the Constitution should be given a different, expansive meaning based on today's culture, values and perceived needs, while "originalists", "textualists" and "strict constructionists" interpret the Constitution to mean the same today as it did when it was written in 1787 and ratified by 1788.

The Federalist Papers are important today for their usefulness in interpreting what the Constitution meant at the time (the "original meaning" of the Constitution).  Today "judicial activists" and "loose constructionists" think the Constitution should be given a different, expansive meaning based on today's culture, values and perceived needs, while "originalists", "textualists" and "strict constructionists" interpret the Constitution to mean the same today as it did when it was written in 1787 and ratified by 1788.

"Judicial review" is the doctrine implied by the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal courts (ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court) to review the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, and for the federal courts to invalidate that law if the courts consider it to be unconstitutional.

"Judicial review" is the doctrine implied by the U.S. Constitution that authorizes the federal courts (ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court) to review the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress and signed by the President, and for the federal courts to invalidate that law if the courts consider it to be unconstitutional.

This power of judicial review was first asserted by the U.S. Supreme Court, then led by its Chief Justice John Marshall, in the famous case of ''Marbury v. Madison'' (1803).  ''Marbury v. Madison'' is the perhaps the most important decision ever issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, because it grabbed for itself the power to overrule what the other two branches decided to do.

This power of judicial review was first asserted by the U.S. Supreme Court, then led by its Chief Justice John Marshall, in the famous case of ''Marbury v. Madison'' (1803).  ''Marbury v. Madison'' is perhaps the most important decision ever issued by the U.S. Supreme Court, because it grabbed for itself the power to overrule what the other two branches decided to do.

Unusual, almost comical, facts led to this case.  After the bitter election of 1800, when John Adams lost his reelection to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams had a "lame duck" period of several months when he was still in power.  In the final moments of his lame duck period, he appointed an unusually large number of justices of peace (low-level, local judges) in the District of Columbia.  Their commissions (salaries) were approved by the U.S. Senate and signed with an official seal by President Adams, '''''but not delivered prior to Adams leaving his office of president'''''.  When Thomas Jefferson took office, he ordered his Secretary of State (James Madison) not to deliver the commissions, so the Adams-appointed justices of peace would not be paid.  Then Jefferson could use that money to pay the salaries of the people he would appoint to government positions.

Unusual, almost comical, facts led to this case.  After the bitter presidential election of 1800, when John Adams lost his reelection to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams had a "lame duck" period of several months when he was still in power.  In the final moments of his lame duck period, he appointed an unusually large number of justices of peace (low-level, local judges) in the District of Columbia.  Their commissions (salaries) were approved by the U.S. Senate and signed with an official seal by President Adams, '''''but not delivered prior to Adams leaving his office of president'''''.  When Thomas Jefferson took office, he ordered his Secretary of State (James Madison) not to deliver the commissions, so the Adams-appointed justices of peace would not be paid.  Then Jefferson could use that money to pay the salaries of the people he would appoint to government positions.

One of those judges, Marbury, sued Madison to obtain Marbury's commission.  The U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether it would rule for Marbury (and Adams), or the new Jefferson Administration.

One of those newly appointed justices of the peace, Marbury, sued Madison in order to obtain the commission.  The U.S. Supreme Court had to decide whether it would rule for Marbury (and Adams), or the new Jefferson Administration.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the decision for the U.S. Supreme Court, and ruled for Jefferson (his Secretary of State Madison), so Jefferson was pleased.  But the basis of Marshall's decision was that the federal law which brought the case before the Court was unconstitutional.  In other words, the Supreme Court invalidated a law passed by Congress and signed by a president, in order to rule for Jefferson.  Jefferson could not complain much because he won, but the basis of the ruling made the Court more powerful than both Congress and the president by authorizing the Court to invalidate their laws.

Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the decision for the U.S. Supreme Court, and ruled for Jefferson (his Secretary of State Madison), so Jefferson was pleased.  But the basis of Marshall's decision was that the federal law which brought the case before the Court was unconstitutional.  In other words, the Supreme Court invalidated a law passed by Congress and signed by a president, in order to rule for Jefferson.  Jefferson could not complain much because he won, but the basis of the ruling made the Court more powerful than both Congress and the president by authorizing the Court to invalidate their laws.

Do not worry if you have trouble understanding the above.  All you need to know is this:  '''''In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court gave itself the power of "judicial review," which is the power to declare as unconstitutional laws passed by Congress and signed by the president'''''.

Do not worry if you have trouble understanding the above.  All you need to know is this:  '''''In Marbury v. Madison, the U.S. Supreme Court gave itself the power of "judicial review," which is the power to declare as unconstitutional any laws passed by Congress and signed by the president'''''.

An everyday example is this.  Suppose Joe is choosing sides for basketball and he picks a player by saying, "I want you to be on my team ... because I want to hog the ball and I want lousy teammates who won't complain."  At first you might be happy you are picked, but before long you'll realize that you were picked by someone who wanted more power for himself.

Consider this analogy to what the Court did.  Suppose Joe chooses sides for basketball and picks a player.  Joe says, "I want you to be on my team ... because I want to hog the ball and I want lousy teammates who won't complain."  At first you might be happy you are picked, but before long you'll realize that you were picked by someone who wanted more power for himself.

Jefferson was not shy about applying a "check and balance" to the courts if he lost.  After all, it was Jefferson who supported the impeachment of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase by the U.S. House of Representatives, and unsuccessfully sought his removal by the U.S. Senate.

Jefferson would not have been shy about applying a "check and balance" to the courts if he had lost.  After all, it was Jefferson who sought the removal of Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase through the impeachment process. But Jefferson's side won in ''Marbury v. Madison'', using reasoning Jefferson disliked.

== "federalism" ==

== "federalism" ==

Whether Justice Kennedy was correct in claiming that "federalism" enhances individual freedom is debatable.  Often the federal government simply intrudes into new areas without any regard for state government.  But there are times when the tradition of state government -- which precedes the U.S. Constitution and the creation of the United States -- does seem to protect liberty and freedom.   

Whether Justice Kennedy was correct in claiming that "federalism" enhances individual freedom is debatable.  Often the federal government simply intrudes into new areas without any regard for state government.  But there are times when the tradition of state government -- which precedes the U.S. Constitution and the creation of the United States -- does seem to protect liberty and freedom.   

An example is homeschooling, which is within the exclusive domain of state government.  Congress respects the role of the states and thus has not tried to regulate homeschooling.  When New Jersey tried to force homeschoolers to take the same tests that are given in public schools, a federal law requiring the withholding of federal money from States if do that became an obstacle.  New Jersey public school teachers gave up on their plan to force homeschoolers to take their tests because the teachers did not want to lose the federal money.  The result was more freedom for homeschooling New Jersey '''''because of federalism'''''.

An example is homeschooling, which is within the exclusive domain of State government.  Congress respects the role of the States and thus has not tried to regulate homeschooling.  When New Jersey tried to force homeschoolers to take the same tests that are given in public schools, an obstacle was a federal law requiring the withholding of federal money from States that compel homeschoolers to take public school tests.  New Jersey public school teachers unions gave up on forcing homeschoolers to take their tests because the teachers did not want to lose the federal money.  The result was more freedom for homeschooling New Jersey '''''because of federalism'''''.

So at least with respect to homeschooling, Justice Kennedy's observation is correct:  "freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."

So at least with respect to homeschooling, Justice Kennedy's observation is correct:  "freedom was enhanced by the creation of two governments, not one."

*other freedoms, such as freedom of the press, the right to assemble, the right to petition government, and the implied "freedom of association"

*other freedoms, such as freedom of the press, the right to assemble, the right to petition government, and the implied "freedom of association"

The Fourth Amendment is important because it provides protection against government searches of homes, cars, and other personal property (unless a resident consents or there is a search warrant)

The Fourth Amendment protects against government searches of homes, cars, and other personal property (unless a resident consents or there is a search warrant)

Among the other Bill of Rights, the most important are:

Among the other Bill of Rights, the most important are:

*the Seventh Amendment, which provides the right to a jury trial in civil (non-criminal) cases

*the Seventh Amendment, which provides the right to a jury trial in civil (non-criminal) cases

*the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture and some forms of the death penalty

*the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, such as torture and some forms of the death penalty

*the Tenth Amendment, which protects the rights of the States and the people except when powers are expressly given to the federal (national) government

*the Tenth Amendment, which reserves all rights to the States and the people unless a power has been expressly given to the federal (national) government

The Fifth Amendment, in addition to protecting criminal defendants, also has provisions for all Americans which protect us against violation of our rights without "due process of law" (explained more below).  The Fifth Amendment further protects everyone against government taking our property without giving the property owner "just compensation" for what the property is worth.  "Eminent domain" is when government takes someone's land in order to build a highway or government building, but the Fifth Amendment requires government to pay the owner the value of his property in those situations.

The Fifth Amendment, in addition to protecting criminal defendants, also has provisions for all Americans which protect us against violation of our rights without "due process of law" (explained more below in connection with a similar clause in the 14th Amendment).  The Fifth Amendment further protects everyone against government taking our property without giving the property owner "just compensation" for what the property is worth.  "Eminent domain" is when government takes someone's land in order to build a highway or government building, but the Fifth Amendment requires government to pay the owner the value of his property in those situations.

Next let's now review in greater detail the most controversial provisions in the Bill of Rights mentioned above.

Next let's review further the most controversial provisions in the Bill of Rights mentioned above.

===Establishment Clause===

===Establishment Clause===

But in the middle of the 20th century some on the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the influence of Christianity, initially applied the Establishment Clause against the States in a decision that upheld what the State was doing.  In that decision, the Court agreed with the State but established a precedent for ruling against States in the future under the Establishment Clause.  Beware of expansions of federal power like that.  It is like a stranger saying, “Open your front door, but don’t worry because I am not coming inside.”

But in the middle of the 20th century some on the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to limit the influence of Christianity, initially applied the Establishment Clause against the States in a decision that upheld what the State was doing.  In that decision, the Court agreed with the State but established a precedent for ruling against States in the future under the Establishment Clause.  Beware of expansions of federal power like that.  It is like a stranger saying, “Open your front door, but don’t worry because I am not coming inside.”

So the Supreme Court first announced it would apply the Establishment Clause against the States, but initially appeared reasonable in deferring to the states.  The Supreme Court thereby opened the door but stood outside to make it look friendly.  Only later did it enter and beginning demanding that States end prayer and take down the Ten Commandments.  Sound familiar?  The Supreme Court took the same approach in ''Marbury v. Madison'' - let one side win, but base it on a reason that enables the Court to expand its power for future cases.

So the Supreme Court first announced it would apply the Establishment Clause against the States, but initially appeared reasonable in deferring to the States.  The Supreme Court thereby opened the door but stood outside to make it look friendly.  Only later did it enter and beginning demanding that States end prayer and take down the Ten Commandments.  Sound familiar?  The Supreme Court took the same approach in ''Marbury v. Madison'' - let one side win, but base it on a reason that enables the Court to expand its power for future cases.

55 years ago, students in public high schools in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” ever morning.  States were free to do this, and schools were much better because of it.  But in 1962, in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'', the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to abolish classroom prayer in public schools.  Fortunately, that Court cannot ban prayer by homeschoolers.

55 years ago, students in public high schools in [[New Jersey]] recited the “Our Father” every morning.  States were free to do this, and schools were much better because of it.  But in 1962, in ''[[Engel v. Vitale]]'', the Supreme Court applied the Establishment Clause to abolish classroom prayer in public schools.  Fortunately, courts cannot ban prayer by homeschoolers.

President George Washington would not have been pleased by this.  In his Farewell Address, written by Alexander Hamilton, Washington said:<ref>Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, Sept. 19, 1796.</ref>

President George Washington would not have been pleased by this.  In his Farewell Address, written by Alexander Hamilton, Washington said:<ref>Philadelphia Daily American Advertiser, Sept. 19, 1796.</ref>

{{cquote|Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.}}

{{cquote|Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, Religion and morality are indispensable supports.  In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labour to subvert these great Pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men & citizens.}}

President John Adams echoed the same principle:<ref>9 The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States 229 (Charles Francis Adams, ed. 1854).</ref> "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

President John Adams echoed the same principle:<ref>9 The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States 229 (Charles Francis Adams, ed. 1854).</ref> "Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.  It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Nothing in the First Amendment requires censorship of the Ten Commandments, which neither establishes a religion nor coerces anyone to believe.  Those who oppose the moral message may feign offense, but appeasing the hypersensitive is not a goal of the First Amendment.  Its prohibition on an establishment of religion does not require purging recognition of religion from everything public.  Federal law expressly references God numerous times, as do our coins and officials’ oaths of office.  The United States Supreme Court itself features Moses holding the sacred tablets.

Nothing in the First Amendment requires censorship of the Ten Commandments, which neither establishes a religion nor coerces anyone to believe.  Those who oppose the moral message may feign offense, but appeasing the hypersensitive is not a goal of the First Amendment.  Its prohibition on an establishment of religion does not require purging recognition of religion from everything public.  Federal law expressly references God numerous times, as do our coins and officials’ oaths of office.  The U.S. Supreme Court itself features Moses holding the sacred tablets of the Ten Commandments.  But the Court banned them from public schools.

The bottom line is this:  the Establishment Clause as originally written does not prohibit classroom prayer and other religious activity on government property, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit classroom prayer in public school and other religious activity on government property now.

The bottom line is this:  the Establishment Clause as originally written does not prohibit public school classroom prayer and religious symbols on government property, but the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Establishment Clause to prohibit this.

'''NOTE''': do not confuse the Establishment Clause with the Free Exercise Clause, which follows the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”

'''NOTE''': do not confuse the Establishment Clause with the separate Free Exercise Clause, which follows the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law ... prohibiting the free exercise thereof ....”

===Free Speech Clause===

===Free Speech Clause===

Flag burning is now free speech.  So are political expenditures.  Spending by a political candidate of his own money on his own campaign is free speech.

Flag burning is now free speech.  So are political expenditures.  Spending by a political candidate of his own money on his own campaign is free speech.

Commercial speech can be protected now too.  Certain types of advertisements, such as ads for legal or medical services, cannot be prohibited.

Commercial speech is protected by the Free Speech Clause too.  Certain types of advertisements, such as ads for legal or medical services, cannot be prohibited.

Free speech can include the right to hear.  It can include a right to publish and criticize the laws freely.  When combined with free press, free speech can protect newspapers which seek to publish information that the government would rather keep secret, such as embarrassing facts about an Administration.

Free speech can include the right to hear.  It can include a right to publish and criticize the laws freely.  When combined with free press, free speech can protect newspapers which seek to publish information that the government would rather keep secret, such as embarrassing facts about an Administration.

You may agree with some or all of the expansions of free speech rights above.  In general, conservatives and liberals tend to support expanding free speech rights, and for that reason free speech has greatly expanded.  Can you think of an example of someone famous who opposed free speech?  (Answer: President John Adams when he signed the Sedition Act to prohibit criticism of him; also Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he wrote the decision in ''Schenck v. United States'' (1919), which affirmed the conviction of someone for criticizing the compulsory military draft in World War I.)

You may agree with some or all of the expansions of free speech rights above.  In general, conservatives and liberals tend to support expanding free speech rights, and for that reason free speech has greatly expanded.  Can you think of an example of someone famous who opposed free speech?  (Answer: President John Adams when he signed the Sedition Act to prohibit criticism of him; also Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes when he wrote the decision in ''Schenck v. United States'' (1919), which affirmed the conviction of someone for criticizing the compulsory military draft in World War I.)

Public schools do not allow full free speech (should they?).  On one hand, it is easy to see why we would not allow students to be able to say whatever they like.  Should students have a right of free speech to lie?  Should students have a right to be rude to the teachers, or post criticisms of their own teachers on the internet?  There are court cases where students have been punished by schools after ridiculing their teachers, and the students then sue the school based on the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment.  What is your view about which side should win on that issue?  

Public schools do not allow full free speech (should they?).  It is easy to see why schools would not allow students to be able to say whatever they like.  Should students have a right of free speech to lie?  Should students have a right to be rude to the teachers, or post criticisms of their own teachers on the internet?  There are court cases where students have been punished by schools after ridiculing their teachers on the internet, and the students then sued the school based on the Free Speech Clause in the First Amendment.  What is your view about which side should win on that issue?  

There is not free speech in the military, either.  If you insult your commander, then he is going to punish you for insubordination.  About twenty years before Japan sunk most of our ships at Pearl Harbor, General Billy Mitchell spoke out against how our top military commanders were leaving our navy unprotected against that sort of attack.  Later events proved him to be completely right, but at the time he was court martialed for insubordination and was both humiliated and forced to resign.  (After the Pearl Harbor attack and after Billy Mitchell died, our military admitted its mistake and reinstated his benefits).  Should there be free speech in the military?

There is not free speech in the military, either.  If you insult your commander, then he is going to punish you for insubordination.  About twenty years before Japan sunk most of our ships at Pearl Harbor, General Billy Mitchell spoke out against how our top military commanders were leaving our navy unprotected against that sort of attack.  Later events proved him to be completely right, but at the time he was court martialed for insubordination and forced to resign.  (After the Pearl Harbor attack and after Billy Mitchell died, our military admitted its mistake and reinstated his benefits).  Should there be free speech in the military?

Conservatives strongly oppose one type of expansion of free speech, however: pornography.  Some liberals oppose it too.  Pornography, like drugs, destroys those who view it, but the U.S. Supreme Court misused the Free Speech Clause to allow pornography to pollute our society.  Gambling has a similar devastating effect on the mind, but because it is conduct (activities), it is not considered to be free speech protected by the First Amendment.

Conservatives strongly oppose one type of expansion of free speech, however: pornography.  Some liberals oppose it too.  Pornography, like drugs, destroys those who view it, but the U.S. Supreme Court misused the Free Speech Clause to allow pornography to pollute our society.  Gambling has a similar devastating effect on the mind, but because it is conduct (activities), it is not considered to be free speech protected by the First Amendment.  States can prohibit gambling.

Your instructor filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing an extension of free speech protection to the sale of violent video games to children.  But by a narrow 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court held that the Free Speech Clause gives people the right to sell the most violent video games imaginable to young children.

Your instructor filed briefs with the U.S. Supreme Court opposing an extension of free speech protection to the sale of violent video games to children.  But by a narrow 5-4 majority, the Supreme Court held in 2011 that the Free Speech Clause gives people the right to sell the most violent video games imaginable to young children.

Keep in mind that the right to free speech does not generally protect one from the resulting consequences of that speech.  The harm that some types of speech (including images) causes, both to others and to yourself, is very real.  People often lose their job because of something they said at work, or on the internet outside of work, for example.  Also, speech relating to conduct, such as threatening someone with harm or asking to do something that is illegal, is a crime punishable with jail sentences.

Keep in mind that the right to free speech does not generally protect one from the resulting consequences of that speech.  The harm that some types of speech (including images) causes, both to others and to yourself, is very real.  People often lose their job because of something they said at work, or on the internet outside of work, for example.  Also, speech relating to conduct, such as threatening someone with harm or asking to do something that is illegal, is a crime punishable with imprisonment.

===Rights of Criminal Defendants===

===Rights of Criminal Defendants===

The basic rights of criminal defendants include: (1) the right to trial by an impartial jury; (2) the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (usually that means a search without a warrant), (3) the right against Double Jeopardy (being retried after being found not guilty); (4) the right to receive a "Miranda warning" (explained below); (5) the right to a hearing before a judge if held in jail (the writ of habeas corpus); and (6) protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  There are other rights also.

The basic rights of criminal defendants include: (1) the right to trial by an impartial jury; (2) the right against unreasonable searches and seizures (usually prohibiting a search without a warrant), (3) the right against Double Jeopardy (being retried after being found not guilty); (4) the right to receive a "Miranda warning" (explained below); (5) the right to a hearing before a judge if held in jail (known as the writ of habeas corpus); and (6) protection against cruel and unusual punishment.  There are other rights also.

The "Miranda warning" is a statement that must be read to all criminal suspects before an officer asks him questions, as established by the Supreme Court decision of ''Miranda v. Arizona'' (1966):

The "Miranda warning" is a statement that must be read to all criminal suspects before an officer asks him questions, as established by the Supreme Court decision of ''Miranda v. Arizona'' (1966):

The United States protects criminal defendants far more than any other country.  Should we?

The United States protects criminal defendants far more than any other country.  Should we?

Some conservatives agree with liberals in siding with rights of criminal defendants in federal court, because the federal government routinely imposes sentences of 20 years or more for non-violent crimes, or crimes that should be handled at a State or local level, or activities that some may not even consider to be criminal.  The Patriot Act was passed to combat terrorism, but it has now been used to investigate non-terrorists also.  Almost no conservative is concerned about the rights of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, but conservatives are worried about abuse of federal powers against American citizens.  The Constitution itself authorizes only a few federal crimes, like treason or misconduct on the "high seas" (oceans).

Some conservatives agree with liberals in siding with rights of criminal defendants in federal court, because the federal government routinely imposes sentences of 20 years or more for non-violent crimes, or crimes that should be handled at a State or local level, or activities that some may not even consider to be criminal.  Ron Paul opposed the Patriot Act because it can be used by the federal government to harass law-abiding citizens.  Few conservatives are concerned about the rights of terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, but many conservatives are worried about abuse of federal powers against American citizens.  The Constitution itself authorizes only a few federal crimes, like treason or misconduct on the "high seas" (oceans).

== Amendments 11-27 ==

== Amendments 11-27 ==

*its Due Process Clause

*its Due Process Clause

Let's look at each aspect carefully next.

Let's look carefully at each of these three concepts.

==== Equal Protection Clause====

==== Equal Protection Clause====

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states:  "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  That means any law which treats people differently based on their race (skin color) is unconstitutional and cannot be applied.  For example, it is illegal for public schools to segregate students based on their race.  The U.S. Supreme Court ended segregation in public schools in ''Brown v. Board of Education'' (1954).

The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment states:  "No state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."  That means any law which treats people differently based on their race (ethnicity or skin color) is unconstitutional and cannot be enforced.  For example, it is illegal for public schools to segregate students based on their race.  The U.S. Supreme Court ended segregation in public schools in ''Brown v. Board of Education'' (1954).

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits other forms of unequal treatment by government too.  The Supreme Court, applying the 14th Amendment, ordered the all-male Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to admit women.  But because the Equal Rights Amendment never passed, not all government laws treating men and women differently are unconstitutional.  For example, the military can have a men-only military draft.  But the military could not draft whites without also drafting blacks, because discrimination by government based on race is '''''never''''' allowed.  "Strict scrutiny" is very strict legal standard that applies to any discrimination by government based on race.

The Equal Protection Clause prohibits other forms of unequal treatment by government too.  The Supreme Court, applying the 14th Amendment, ordered the all-male Virginia Military Institute (VMI) to admit women.  But because the Equal Rights Amendment never passed, not all government laws treating men and women differently are unconstitutional.  For example, the military can have a men-only military draft.  But the military could not draft whites without also drafting blacks, because discrimination by government based on race is '''''never''''' allowed.  "Strict scrutiny" is a very strict legal standard that applies to invalidate any discrimination by government based on race.

Notice the qualifier "by government."  '''''The 14th Amendment applies only to government'''''.  The 14th Amendment does not apply to private individuals, clubs, churches, sports teams, etc.  Major League Baseball excluded blacks until after World War II, for example, and the 14th Amendment says nothing about that.  But other laws prohibit discrimination by places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants.  And the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is the strongest in the nation in prohibit discrimination far beyond what the 14th Amendment requires.  Keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution sets a minimal standard against discrimination; States can often go beyond what the Constitution requires.

But notice the qualifier "by government."  '''''The 14th Amendment applies only to government'''''.  The 14th Amendment does not apply to private individuals, clubs, churches, sports teams, etc.  Major League Baseball excluded blacks until after World War II, for example, and the 14th Amendment says nothing about that.  But other laws prohibit discrimination by places of public accommodation, such as hotels and restaurants.  And the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination is the strongest in our Nation in prohibit discrimination far beyond what the 14th Amendment requires.  Keep in mind that the U.S. Constitution sets a minimal standard against discrimination; States can often go beyond what the Constitution requires.

The Equal Protection Clause is used today to seek constitutional rights beyond issues of racial and gender discrimination.  Gays seek a right to marry under the Equal Protection Clause, by claiming they are discriminated against in violation of this Clause when a State (such as New Jersey) does not allow same-sex marriage.  Many of these lawsuits are headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.

The Equal Protection Clause is used today to seek constitutional rights beyond issues of racial and gender discrimination.  Gays seek a right to marry under the Equal Protection Clause, by claiming they are discriminated against in violation of this Clause when a State (such as New Jersey) does not allow same-sex marriage.  Many of these lawsuits are headed to the U.S. Supreme Court for final resolution.

===15th Amendment===

===15th Amendment===

The 15th Amendment ensures the right of everyone to vote, no matter what their race or ethnicity is (the 19th Amendment extended that right to all women).  This 15th Amendment has been interpreted to prohibit any "literacy tests" (exams to see if someone can read a ballot) as a pre-condition on the right to vote.

The 15th Amendment ensures the right of everyone to vote, no matter what their race or ethnicity is (the 19th Amendment extended that right to all women).  This 15th Amendment has been interpreted to prohibit any "literacy tests" (exams to see if someone can read a ballot) as a pre-condition on the right to vote. Millions of voters today are unable to read the ballot.

===17th Amendment===

===17th Amendment===

<references/>

<references/>

[[Category:American Government lectures]]

[[Category:American Government lectures]]

{{DEFAULTSORT:American Government Lecture 10}}

{{DEFAULTSORT:American Government Lecture 10}}