POLS 1101Week 4Jan. 28-Feb.1Bill of Rights- GA said they would not ratify the Constitution unless there was a Bill of Rights - The founder believed a government of the people would not just abuse or take away peoples’ rights. But, some people didn’t completely trust politicians to guarantee their rights. So, they wanted a physical, written Bill of Rights- There was a proposal of 12 amendments to the Constitutiono 10 were quickly ratifiedo 2 did not make it (though one of these was ratified recently almost 200 years later)- The Bill of Rights is where we find the list of all of our inalienable rights. o We now call these our civil liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, etc.- There is a differentiation between civil liberties and civil rights thougho Civil Liberties we are guaranteed these rights; we know the government will not do specific things to harm us, and there are specific things they will do for us Ex: We cannot be put in jail without a fair trialo Civil Rights this is basically the ideal of equality; we are all equal citizens with equal opportunity Ex: we all have the right to vote, rights to citizenship, etc.- The states can guarantee MORE rights than the Constitution if they feel necessary but they cannot take away any rights.o GA does this: we have more detailed information about the rights of a person that the Constitution doeso The Constitution says we all have the right to due process and protection from cruel andunusual punishment. GA goes into detail what cruel and unusual punishment is such as whipping, etc.- GA allows the death penalty for specific crimes- GA is the first state to recognize the right to privacy (1904)o This is now one of the central rights people enjoy all over the U.S.- There are 10 amendments in the Bill of Rights1 st Amendment - “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abiding the freedom of speech, or the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”- Freedom of Religiono The founders (who knew about their old government) knew that that the two most powerful institutions were government and religion. (Church and State)o When these two institutions worked together, no one could withstand a power so strong. Many came to the U.S. to flee religious persecution because in Europe duringPOLS 1101Week 4Jan. 28-Feb.1that time a person was subject to persecution if they did not believe in the ‘correct’ religion.o Because of this, they wanted a wall between government and religion No national religion but they still wanted religious freedomo Wall of Separation (there are 2 components of freedom of religion) Free Exercise Clause: government cannot interfere with religious beliefs and practices Establishment Clause: government cannot force a person to believe or practice a specific religiono In 1947, the Supreme Court interpreted Freedom of Religion as follows: “neither state nor federal government can set up a church, aid a religion, force a person to go or stay away from church, profess a belief, etc…o We have almost absolute freedom religiously  The government cannot technically be involved with setting up, promoting, or favoring specific ones, but there are some grey areaso In 1940, the U.S. Supreme Court said the 1st amendment included: Freedom to Belief (absolute) Freedom to Act (conduct remains subject to regulation of society)- So, you can believe anything you want and you can act on that belief to a certain extent. You can attend church, etc., but you cannot act on it if it is illegal o Ex: You cannot murder because “God says so”o Establishing Religion Engel vs. Viatel (1962)- Are public schools (funded by the government) allowed to require students to pray during a school day?- They say that an official prayer violates the clause. It forces people to pray which encourages specific religions over others or no religion- Teacher cannot read a bible in classo In 1985, Laws say there will be a moment of silence for prayer or meditation The U.S. Supreme Court says NO. The purpose is clearly religious and unconstitutional. So, GA set up a moment of silence for ‘quiet reflection on the days activities.’- This has no mention of religion so it was okay- They wanted the silence for people to able to pray if they wanted to, but it was not forced.POLS 1101Week 4Jan. 28-Feb.1- Freedom of Speecho 1919 Shank vs. U.S. After WWI, Shank opposed the war and handed out pamphlets urging men not to join the draft Were certain words not allowed? They decided that if words presented a “clear and present danger” then Congress has the right to prevent. You are not allowed to create speech that causes danger. So, Freedom of Speech is limited only under certain circumstanceso In 1969, Supreme Court revised this slightly saying the speech “must be advocating to cause violence.” Ex: You are allowed to say the governor is stupid; someone should shoot him. But, you cannot say come on everyone, let’s shoot the governor.o Texas vs. Johnson (1989) In 1988, the Republican National Convention was held in Texas Johnson was outside protesting and he burned an American Flag Supreme Court said this was a symbolic form of speech saying, “I reject American values and polices.” This was like when the colonists burned British tax stamps But, symbolic speech is protected by the 1st amendment- Freedom of Press (almost absolute)o Prior restraint: stopping something from being publishedo NY Times vs. U.S. (1971) aka the Pentagon Papers Caseo There was an employee who had access to secret government material during the Vietnam waro Ellisburg discovered pages of information about what the U.S. had actually done during the war, not what they were telling people had happened. o Some of the things that had occurred were possibly illegal so he copied the papers and gave them to the NY Times and Washington Post This was illegal for him to do Nixon found out about this and forbid the information from being publishedo Supreme Court said he could not forbid this They said if the papers said something that would hurt national security or defense, it would be differento If a newspaper writes untrue things about you, they are intentionally hurting you with false information. They are technically liable to this.o But, Supreme