Civil Rights - AP Government and Politics

Desegregation of the armed forces took place in 1948 and was ordered by President Harry Truman. Roosevelt had recently banned racial discrimination and segregation in government offices.

The Citizens United case famously established that the First Amendment protects person's political contributions as free speech and that corporations qualify for this sort of protection. A student who knows that the case involved corporations and free speech should be able to quickly narrow down the answers.

Traditionally, the Pledge of Allegiance was considered by many to be mandatory. The freedom of speech act allows citizens to choose whether or not to say the Pledge in public schools.

The Tinker Test is used when a state facility uses major disciplinary actions against a disruptive student. The First Amendment protects students from uninformed or unfair dismissals, and the precedent established in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District allows courts to easily arbitrate these situations.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the primary piece of legislation that come out of the Civil Rights Movement and was eventually passed after a lot of pressure on Congress from President Lyndon B. Johnson. This act contained various provisions designed to protect against discrimination based on race, gender, national origin, and ethnicity and therefore outlawed what was left of segregation and eventually forced the desegregation of schools. This act is credited with providing many of the protections that people have today and is considered one of the most important pieces of 20th legislation.

According to the precedents and rulings set by the Supreme Court, the First Amendment protects many forms of free speech, including the promotion of anarchy or Communism, public criticism of the government’s policies during wartime, and even speech regarding the violent overthrow of the government – provided that such language does not explicitly lead to violent activity. However, the Court has found that the First Amendment does not, in fact, protect libelous speech. Although libel is often confused with slander, the two terms are legally different – libel is defined as a written negative statement about an individual, while slander (which is protected by the First Amendment) pertains to spoken speech only. Yet the Court has also set very high standards for any individual seeking to sue for libel, especially if the individual in question is a public figure (such as a politician or celebrity). According to the Court, the plaintiff (the person bringing the libel charge) must prove not only that the written statements in question are false but also that the accused author intentionally penned the comments with harmful intent. In other words, in order to win a libel case, the plaintiff must be able to be prove that the accused author willfully lied in an attempt to injure the plaintiff’s reputation and/or life. Such a standard is clearly quite difficult to meet – after all, how precisely does someone find absolute proof of another person’s inner motivations? Libel cases are thus hardly ever decided in favor of the plaintiff, although private individuals (aka average citizens) do have a very slightly higher success rate.

Perhaps the murkiest of all free speech issues can be found when considering the topic of symbolic speech. The Supreme Court defines symbolic speech as any action (typically carried out nonverbally) that is intended to express a personal opinion. In a sense, because such actions are normally carried out publically and are designed to make a dramatic or otherwise influential impact upon the viewer, the Court has ruled that the protections of the First Amendment are therefore applicable to these scenarios. However, the Court has yet to fully clarify precisely which actions are classified as symbolic speech and, conversely, which activities are not protected; instead, the Court has dealt with issues on an individual basis by deciding on the protected status of specific actions on a case-by-case basis. Perhaps the most famous case of symbolic speech involves the deliberate burning of the American flag, which citizens have done as a form of protest. Although many Americans, some justices included, dislike this action, the Court has ruled that burning the American flag does, in fact, quality as symbolic speech and is therefore allowed. Other protected acts of symbolic speech include the public display of a burning cross (unless explicit and directly connected threats are made) and the willful exclusion of a group from a public parade. A person may not, however, burn their military draft card as a form of protest, as the Court holds that a draft card, because it is issued by the federal government, is therefore federal property and cannot be destroyed without consent. Clearly, further clarification of symbolic speech is necessary and most likely forthcoming.

De facto segregation is the name given to racial segregation that exists, but is not supported by law and may even run counter to contemporary laws. De jure segregation is segregation that is created by and supported by law. De jure segregation has proved much easier to get rid of in American society, whereas de facto segregation has proven much more resilient.

The Warren Court cited the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as justification for striking down racial segregation. Students should be able to recall critical civil rights amendments (such as the First, Fourteenth, Fifteenth, and Nineteenth Amendments).

Particularly at the dawn of the union, states have had a significant amount of autonomy and power. Back when property was often necessary for voting, the states were allowed to decide how much property was needed to have one's voice heard on political matters.

The Mayflower Compact was an early governing document signed by people who migrated from Europe to what would become the United States. It was drafted onboard the Mayflower by members of its crew based on when they knew of their environment thus stressing the need for self-governance.

In a criminal trial, the rights of the accused trump protection for journalistic sources. The Supreme Court refused to take the case of journalist Myron Farber, who found himself in a similar situation, because the Constitution does not provide reporters with the privilege of refusing to provide the name of a confidential source in the context of a criminal trial. The majority of states have "shield laws" that will keep journalists safe in such a situation, but the federal government does not. Federal courts must decide on a case-by-case basis whether the need of a journalist to protect a confidential source outweighs the interest of the government in gathering evidence in a criminal investigation.

The Bill of Rights – which are the Constitution’s first ten Amendments – are the source of the civil liberties and rights enjoyed by all Americans. The Constitution itself is a much broader document; it deals with Congressional structure, states’ rights, Presidential powers, and federal election requirements, among many other administrative concerns. The Bill of Rights was specifically added onto the Constitution by Congress in 1791, in order to ensure that in addition to its other topics, the Constitution included adequate protection of civil liberties. Included in the Bill of Rights are such famous statements as the right to freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and protection against “cruel and unusual punishment” by legal authorities. Indeed, the Bill of Rights is primarily focused on listing those freedoms (such as the three stated above) that both the national and state governments must respect and may not (unless under severe duress) ban any citizen from exercising or enjoying. Because most state constitutions at the time already included their own bills of rights, the Constitution’s Bill of Rights took its inspiration from these state documents, which were widely satisfaction of most citizens.

The Civil Rights Movement, in an effort to achieve change through the judicial system, first took up the issue of equal public education before the Supreme Court – perhaps because the value of education is a widely cherished belief across all levels of American society. In 1954, civil rights advocates, led by the NAACP, brought the case of Brown v. Board of Education to the Court, in which they argued that segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. The Court agreed, ruling that under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, segregation in public schools was indeed unconstitutional, even if the provided facilities and materials were “separate but equal” (as proponents of segregation alleged). This decision reversed an earlier ruling issued by the Court in 1896, in which the justices had found “separate but equal” institutions (including segregated schools, segregated restaurants, and segregated railroad cars) were legally permissible (Plessy v. Ferguson). Brown v. Board’s decisive ruling was the first judicial victory achieved by the Civil Rights Movement and the Supreme Court would go on to expand upon this case’s ruling, using it as a template for further judicial expansion and protection of the civil rights of African Americans and other minority groups.

Eminent Domain has been a policy of the US Government since independence from the British Empire. It allows the Federal government to seize private property for public use. Due to the fact that it inherently violates the right of an individual to own property it has always been at least somewhat controversial. It reappears as a major public issue from time to time throughout American history.

Adell Sherbert was a Seventh Day Adventist who refused to work on Saturday, as it was her religion's sabbath. When her employer fired her, she sued her employer, arguing she had a constitutional right to not be fired for freely exercising her religion. After her case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, the court found in her favor, and established the so-called Sherbert test. The Sherbert test was used to determine whether someone's ability to freely exercise his or her religion was being limited by the government.

Grandfather clauses were established in the South during the Reconstruction era, after the Civil War, in an attempt to prevent many African-Americans from voting. In the Reconstruction era, many Southern states made laws declaring that any man voting had to pass strict literacy and property ownership tests, unless he could prove that his grandfather had been able to vote prior to the Civil War. Grandfather clauses were ruled unconstitutional in 1915.

The Wilmot Proviso is considered an important part of the build up to the outbreak of Civil War. It attempted to ban the extension of slavery into any states or territory acquired in the war with Mexico; however, it was repeatedly rejected in the Senate because the South had enough representatives to block such legislation from passing. The issue would be settled temporarily by the Compromise of 1850.

In 1857, the Supreme Court made a decision that black Americans were inferior, not-citizens that didn’t hold equal rights to white men (regardless of free or slave status). This decision also struck a blow against new-land abolitionists, ruling that the federal government couldn’t control the legality of slavery in new federal territories.

The 15th Amendment granted African Americans the right to vote, after the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery and the 14th Amendment establishing the equal protection clause.