Civil Liberties And Civil Rights Law Constitutional Administrative Essay

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Although both terms often used in same context as the dissimilarities are existed in blurred form.

Civil liberties may refer to protection guard towards particular conditions against Government. Like, the word "liberty’’ used in common language, to refer "free’’ from a particular thing, person or condition’. And provide freedom or guard from that particular, person thing or condition (Gastil. 1980).

An example of civil liberty is "liberty of religion’’. Under this liberty provision an individual is free from Government to chose his religion or belief. The individuls are unliable to Government in this regard and can select or change their religion according to their own consent.

Civil Rights in contrast are the liabilities of Government against society or common public. These are the actions that Government should have to fulfill towards the concerning persons (Gastil.1980). One example of civil rights is "safety", Which is by law is right of public by Government. Other examples are "right to vote", "right to speech" etc.

Bill of rights:

It refers to the collective name of first ten ammendments to the constitution. These Ammendments includes the freedoms of ciivil citizens against Government. And it was remain controversial at the time of forming. By the passage of time, the applications of rights have modified because of changing judicial implementation.as our understanding for the constitution evolve over time and their explanation also change accordingly.

There are following freedoms included in the bill of rights:

the right to free speech

this amendment called (Amendment I) and applicable to all states of U.S. under this ammendment, civil citizens have the right to express, and speech what they pleased. Government cannot influence them to speech.

But this right may also included the limitation, while describing the public or political speech and private speech. U.S Government, protects the private speech with the limitation of others rights and public speech with the limitation of "threat or obscene".

the right to the free exercise of religion:

under this amendment, civil citizen have the right against the Government to have religion what they pleased. Meaning that, congress may not establish any law regarding any religion, to prohibit from its exercise.this is also part of first ammendment (blantik. 1998).

prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizures:

This right is providing security against unreasonable searches and seizures in their houses, persons and papers etc. meaning that, no warrents to search in civil citizen’s effects, papers, houses and people may issue. But provided with some probable cause which are provided by oath and affirmation. That search warrants if issued, must be describing the particularity of thing to be search or seized, like the person, house, papers etc.

guarantees of the due process of law:

Under this right, no person is liable to be deprived of his life, capital, propery or any liberty without due process of law.meaning that any of his private property may use publicly and is not questionable in these regards without any duue process of law. If the use of the property is beneficial or vital for public use than, the owner consent with compensation and due process is obligatory.also that, no person is liable to be offended twicely in jeopardy of life (cole. 1997).

Right of privacy:

Privacy under this right, refers to the "birth control" , " gays/lesbians" and "abortion" rights and limitations. Inthe case of Lawrence v. Texas (2003), the Supreme Court stated that gays are "entitled to respect for their private lives".

Other rights under these ammendments are following:

Right to keep and bear arms.

Right of quartering troops.

Right to confront ant to counsel.

Right to Jury trial

Right to not panelted by Excess bail or fines.

Non-enumerated rights

rights reserveed to states.

THE BILL OF RIGHTS- controversies:

"Bill of rights" and its ammendments are being controversial and so modifieng with respect to its jurisdictional implementatio. As the explanation of rights are changing and modifying. The discussions and views change due to complications of cases. The complications of cases arises by conflict of liberties. Like one person’s freedom to speech versus public order. Like, One person’s speech may harm other’s image. Now the first person is having right to speech but other one is having right to not to be harm by other’s speech. So conflict arised and make the situations complicative (Black.1960).

The question of application also discussing over time, that either the aplication of these ammendment is liability of federal Government or States also included. as the "bill of rights’’ was constituted to restrict the powers of central Government, but what if, a state passes a law violating the rights protected by central Government? This question, debated since formation of the bill.

First amendment debates and evolution:

First amendment "freedom of religion" is also long debated. Different Governments provide and establish religious places, like Britain establish their own churches for public.

In the era of "Thomas Jefferson’’ presidency the term of "wall of separation" introduced by Thomas Jefferson to separate the religion and state affairs.

In 1993 congress also passed Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) after a resolution to protect citizens with respect to free exercise of religion. In 1997 the Supreme court after some consideration, in order to balance the liberty rights, reserved the institutional rights (Lupu. 1997).

City of Boerne v. Flores:

This case was resultant of dispute arises on permission problem to enlarge the church, When the Catholic Archbishop of San Antonio, Patrick Flores went to have permition by a building under contributing property, to enlarge the church. But the local zoning authorities denied permitting. Flores suid the city government,claiming that this is the violation of RFRA and argued that his gathering has outgrown and needs extended place. And demanded free exercise of religion without any state interference. The district court uphold the RFRA unconstitutional(Linde. 1979).

Then Flores appaled in "united states court of appeals’’, which found the RFRA constitutional and accept the flores claim.

Case of Barron V. Baltimore:

Mr. Barron was the co-owner of wharf in Baltimore harbor.he sued the mayor of Baltimore to damage the wharf. He claimed that, while street construction the diverted flow of city has created the mounds of sands; violating his fifth ammendment rights. Then in 1833, the court ruled that, these rights are only obligations of central Government not applicable to state and cities (warren, Charles. 1926).

After this in 1925, after a long debate and controversies, supreme court ruled that the state government must respect some ammended rights.(Mikell. 1908).but in "glitlow v. New york" case, court ruled the scope of 1st ammendment of the constitution, extending the reach of certain limitations on central government authority.that some of "bill of rights’’ ammendments are applicable also to the statye as well (black.1960).

Glitlow v. Newyork:

In Glitlow v. Newyork, the supreme court stated that ,that freedoms of speech and press "were fundamental personal rights and liberties protected by the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from impairment by the states."

Gradually the supreme court extended the limitation and in the era of Justice Earl Warren in 1960s, the concept of "incorporation doctrine’ developed. By which most of the ammendments were also applicable to state government (King. 1961).

Not everyone agrees that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated parts of the Bill of Rights into state laws; in 1985, Edwin Meese (then attorney general) strongly criticized Gitlow and called for "disincorporation" of the Bill of Rights (King. 1960).

Plessy V. Fergusan:

In 1896 the case called Plessy V. Fergusan, supreme court defined the segregation with respect to race. And call this "seperate but equal"(Linde. 1979). Meaning that black people have same rights as white. But on seperate place i.e seperate schools etc.

Brown V. Board of Education:

The plessy’s rule of "seperate but same" applied till 1954. Then the rule was rejected by the Brown V. Board of education, case decision(Mikell.1908).and Chief Justice Earl Warren stated that, "… in the field of public education the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place."

Refferances:

Meiklejohn, A. (1961). The First Amendment is an absolute. The Supreme Court Review, 1961, 245-266.

Linde, H. A. (1979). First Things First: Rediscovering the States' Bills of Rights.U. Balt. L. Rev., 9, 379.

Mikell, W. E. (1908). Extent of the Treaty Making Power of the President and Senate of the United States. U. Pa. L. Rev., 57, 528.

Laycock, D. (1997). Conceptual Gulfs in City of Boerne v. Flores. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 39, 743.

Blatnik, E. J. (1998). No RFRAF Allowed: The Status of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act's Federal Application in the Wake of City of Boerne v. Flores.Columbia Law Review, 1410-1460.

Gastil, R. D. (1980). Freedom in the world: Political rights and civil liberties. Transaction Pub.

Hamilton, M. A. (1997). City of Boerne v. Flores: A Landmark for Structural Analysis. Wm. & Mary L. Rev., 39, 699.