American Revolution Causes

The American Revolution

• The American Revolution began when a small group of colonists felt that the king and Parliament were abusing them and depriving them of their rights.
• By 1776, the colonists had been living under British rule for over a century, with a degree of benign neglect, and each colony had established its own legislature.
• Taxes imposed by England were low, and property ownership was more widespread than in England.

The Proclamation of 1763

• After the Seven Years War, the British government passed the Proclamation of 1763, which forbade the colonists to purchase land or settle west of the Appalachian Mountains.
• This was done to prevent conflict with Indian tribes in the Ohio Valley.

The British Government's Need for Revenue

• To pay its debts from the war and maintain troops, the British government had to raise revenue.
• Acts passed by Parliament included laws requiring American colonists to pay British merchants with gold and silver, and a mandate that suspected smugglers be tried in vice-admiralty courts without jury trials.

Direct Taxation

• The imposition of direct taxes, such as the Stamp Act, angered the colonists, who felt that it reduced their status as free men.
• The colonists had not consented to direct taxation, and they argued that it was a violation of their rights as English subjects.

The Stamp Act

• The Stamp Act, passed in 1765, required that almost all paper goods have revenue stamps placed on them.
• The outcry was so great that the tax was quickly withdrawn, but it was soon followed by other tax acts, such as the Townshend Acts.

The Townshend Acts

• The Townshend Acts, passed in 1767, imposed taxes on everyday objects such as glass, tea, and paint.
• The taxes were poorly received by the colonists, and the Massachusetts legislature sent a petition to the king asking for relief.

The Boston Massacre

• In 1770, British soldiers fired into a crowd, killing three people, in an event that became known as the Boston Massacre.
• The event sparked resistance to British rule, especially in Massachusetts.

The Boston Tea Party

• In December 1773, a group of Boston men boarded a ship and threw its cargo of tea into the water to protest British policies.
• This act of defiance became known as the Boston Tea Party.

The Coercive Acts

• In response to the Boston Tea Party, Parliament passed the Coercive Acts, which punished Boston and interfered with the colony's ability to govern itself.
• The acts enraged people throughout the colonies, leading to the formation of the First Continental Congress.

The Declaration of Independence

• On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress declared American independence from Britain.
• The Declaration of Independence, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, officially proclaimed the colonies' separation from Britain and listed the reasons for rebellion.
• The document eloquently laid out the reasons for rebellion, including the king's deprivation of the colonists' rights and his establishment of an absolute tyranny over the states.

The Debate Over the Bill of Rights

• The Federalists believed that the Constitution's limited set of named powers and limitations in Article I, Section 9 would suffice, making a separate bill of rights unnecessary.
• Alexander Hamilton argued that listing some rights might be dangerous, as it could imply that unlisted rights were not protected.
• James Madison acknowledged that state governments would differ in what they would tolerate, grant, and prohibit among their citizens, but the Articles of Confederation did not include a specific listing of rights.

The Anti-Federalist Position

• Anti-Federalists believed that the Federalists' position was incorrect and perhaps even insincere, as they thought the Constitution's elastic clause would allow Congress to legislate on matters beyond what was foreseen.
• Brutus (likely Robert Yates) argued that the Constitution granted the general government complete powers, reaching every aspect of human happiness, and therefore required limits to its power.

The Importance of the Bill of Rights

• The struggle to have rights clearly delineated nearly derailed the ratification process.
• The decision to omit a bill of rights from the Constitution became a serious point of contention in larger states like New York and Virginia.
• The Federalists agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to secure majorities in favor of ratification.

The Creation of the Bill of Rights

• James Madison delivered on the promise to propose amendments, drawing from the Virginia state constitution, ratification conventions, and other sources.
• Twelve separate amendments were proposed, debated, and ultimately ratified by the states, with ten becoming known as the Bill of Rights.

Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

• The Supreme Court has been incorporating provisions of the Bill of Rights into state laws and constitutions since 1897, even if they are not explicitly protected.
• This process ensures that states uphold fundamental liberties, even if their state constitutions and laws do not provide the same level of protection.

The Role of the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court decides whether state laws violate the Bill of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional.
• The Court clarifies issues and procedures through case law, ensuring that states comply with the Bill of Rights.

The Fifth Amendment and Grand Juries

• The Fifth Amendment requires that a person be tried in federal court for a felony only after a grand jury issues an indictment.
• The Supreme Court has ruled that states do not need to use grand juries, as long as they provide an equally fair process for indictment.

Incorporation of the Second Amendment

• In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
• However, it was not until the McDonald v. Chicago case in 2010 that the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment into state law.

Censorship and the Fourteenth Amendment

• In Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Supreme Court ruled that censorship is unconstitutional, except in rare cases.
• The Court disagreed with state courts on this issue, gradually moving to incorporate the Bill of Rights into state law.

The First Amendment

• The First Amendment guarantees both religious freedoms and the right to express views in public
• The amendment has two main parts: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause

The Establishment Clause

• The establishment clause prevents the government from creating or promoting a state-sponsored religion
• It protects people from having a set of religious beliefs imposed on them by the government
• It also protects people from having their own religious beliefs restricted by government authorities
• The clause is often interpreted as imposing a "wall of separation between church and state"

The Lemon Test

• The Lemon test is a three-part criteria for deciding whether a law or government action promotes a particular religious practice
• The criteria are:
  • The action or law must not lead to excessive government entanglement with religion
  • The action or law cannot inhibit or advance religious practice
  • The action or law must have a secular purpose

Education and the Establishment Clause

• Many court cases involving the establishment clause have dealt with education, particularly public education
• The clause limits official endorsement of religion, including prayers organized by school authorities
• However, it does not prohibit voluntary, non-disruptive prayer by students

Ceremonial Deism

• The courts have generally allowed for a certain tolerance of ceremonial deism, an acknowledgement of God or a creator that lacks substantive religious content
• Examples include the national motto "In God We Trust" and the inclusion of the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance

The Free Exercise Clause

• The free exercise clause limits the government's ability to control or restrict religious practices
• It regulates government suppression of religious beliefs and practices
• Much of the controversy surrounding the free exercise clause involves the balance between laws that apply to everyone and the accommodation of religious practices

Conscientious Objectors

• Conscientious objectors are individuals who claim the right to refuse to perform military service on the grounds of freedom of thought, conscience, or religion
• The Supreme Court has ruled that to claim to be a conscientious objector, a person must be opposed to serving in any war, not just some wars

The Sherbert Test

• The Sherbert test is a two-part criteria for deciding whether a law can limit or burden a religious practice
• The criteria are:
  • The government must demonstrate a "compelling governmental interest" in limiting the practice
  • The restriction must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve the goal

Employment Division v. Smith

• In this case, the Supreme Court substantially narrowed the Sherbert test, making it easier for the government to enforce laws that infringe on religious beliefs
• The court ruled that the "compelling governmental interest" standard should not apply, and that the government can regulate religious practices so long as the law is not designed to target a particular religion

The Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)

• The RFRA was passed in response to the Employment Division v. Smith decision
• It allows individuals to claim that a law burdens their religious practice, and requires the government to demonstrate a compelling interest in the law
• Twenty-one states have passed state RFRAs, which include the Sherbert test in state law### Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)
• In 2014, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in favor of Hobby Lobby and Green, stating that closely held businesses do not have to provide employees with free access to emergency contraception or birth control if it violates the owners' religious beliefs.
• The court suggested that the government could ensure access to these services through less restrictive means, such as paying for them directly.

State RFRAs Controversy

• In 2015, state RFRAs sparked controversy when individuals and businesses providing wedding services were forced to provide services for same-sex weddings in states where it was newly legalized.
• Proponents argued that people and businesses should not be compelled to endorse practices that violate their religious beliefs, and that clergy might be forced to officiate same-sex marriages against their religion's teachings.
• Opponents argued that individuals and businesses should be required to serve same-sex marriages on an equal basis as a matter of ensuring civil rights, just like interracial marriages.

Diversity of Religious Views on Marriage

• Religious organizations and clergy are not homogeneous in their view of marriage.
• Examples of religious groups that support same-sex marriage include Episcopalians, some Methodists, and leaders in the Jewish and Hindu faiths.

Notorious Cases

• The Oregon bakery case (2013): owners refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, citing religious beliefs, and were eventually awarded $135,000 in damages.
• Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018): the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker's rights.

Public Interest and Religious Freedom

• The courts have consistently found some public interests to be sufficiently compelling to override the free exercise clause.
• Examples of public interests that trump individual rights include laws against polygamy, drug use, and human sacrifice.
• However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court overturned California's ban on indoor gatherings, prioritizing individual rights over public interest.

Freedom of Expression

• The First Amendment protects four distinct rights: free speech, press, assembly, and petition, which encompass a right to freedom of expression.
• Controversies over freedom of expression were rare until the 1900s, despite government censorship being common.
• The emergence of photography and movies led to new public concerns about morality, causing state and federal politicians to censor lewd and improper content.
• Censorship reached its height during World War I, with anti-German feeling and communist revolutionaries leading to imprisonment of those who opposed the war.

Schenck v. United States (1919)

• The Supreme Court ruled that people encouraging young men to dodge the draft could be imprisoned, arguing that recommending disobedience of the law presented a "clear and present danger" to public order.

Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)

• The Supreme Court found that only speech or writing that constituted a direct call or plan to imminent lawless action could be suppressed; the mere advocacy of a hypothetical revolution was not enough.

Burning the U.S. Flag

• Burning the U.S. flag is a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment.
• In Texas v. Johnson (1989), the Supreme Court decided that burning the flag was a form of symbolic speech protected by the First Amendment and found the law, as applied to flag desecration, to be unconstitutional.

Freedom of the Press

• In Near v. Minnesota (1931), the Supreme Court ruled that the government generally could not engage in prior restraint; states and the federal government could not in advance prohibit someone from publishing something without a compelling reason.
• In the Pentagon Papers case (1971), the Supreme Court found that the government could not prohibit the New York Times and Washington Post newspapers from publishing the Pentagon Papers.

Limitations on Freedom of Expression

• Incitement of a criminal act, "fighting words," and genuine threats are not protected by the First Amendment.
• Defamation of character, whether in written or spoken form, is not protected by the First Amendment.
• Obscenity, acts or statements that are extremely offensive under current societal standards, is not protected by the First Amendment.
• Child pornography is banned almost without challenge.
• Censorship of less-than-obscene content is allowed when broadcast over the airwaves, particularly when children might be in the audience.

Regulation of Expression in Schools and Businesses

• The courts have ruled that, although public school officials are government actors, the First Amendment freedom of expression rights of children attending public schools are somewhat limited.
• Businesses can be compelled to disclose certain information, such as nutritional information on food and beverage containers and warning labels on tobacco products.
• False or misleading statements made in connection with a commercial transaction can be illegal if they constitute fraud.

Right to Assemble Peaceably and Petition Government Officials

• The right to assemble peaceably and petition government officials extends to members of groups whose views most people find abhorrent.
• The nature, place, and timing of protests, but not their substantive content, are subject to reasonable limits.
• The courts have ruled that while people may peaceably assemble in a place that is a public forum, not all public property is a public forum.

The Second Amendment and Gun Rights

• The Second Amendment is one of the shortest in the US Constitution, stating "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
• The amendment has been highly controversial, with debates centering on whether it protects the right of states to organize a militia or an individual's right to bear arms.

Historical Context

• Before the Civil War, White males of military age were considered part of the militia, and the right to bear arms was seen as a common-law right inherited from English law.
• At the time, gun control mostly focused on ensuring enslaved people and their abolitionist allies didn't have guns.

Post-Civil War Developments

• After the Civil War, selective incorporation led to renewed debates over the Second Amendment.
• Southern states adopted laws restricting gun ownership and carrying by formerly enslaved people.
• In 1876, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in United States v. Cruickshank, failing to ensure states respected the individual right to bear arms.

Evolution of Gun Control Laws

• States gradually introduced laws regulating gun ownership in the following decades.
• Federal gun control laws began in the 1930s, with stricter laws regulating commerce and trade in guns introduced in the 1960s.
• In the 1980s, laws requiring background checks for prospective gun buyers were passed.
• The Supreme Court's decisions on the Second Amendment were ambiguous until the 2008 District of Columbia v. Heller case, which found that the amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.

Landmark Supreme Court Cases

• United States v. Miller (1934): The Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act's prohibition of sawed-off shotguns, suggesting that the Second Amendment protected the right of states to organize a militia.
• District of Columbia v. Heller (2008): The Supreme Court found that some gun control laws violate the Second Amendment and that it protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
• McDonald v. Chicago (2010): The Supreme Court overturned the Cruickshank decision, finding that the right to bear arms is a fundamental right incorporated against the states.

Modern Developments

• In 2015, the Supreme Court allowed several of San Francisco's strict gun control laws to remain in place, suggesting that gun rights are not absolute.
• Recent traumatic shootings have led to increased activism around gun control and community safety, particularly among young people.

The Fourth Amendment

• Protects individuals from overzealous law enforcement efforts, ensuring police have good reason before intruding on people's lives with criminal investigations
• The amendment places limits on both searches and seizures:
  • Searches: efforts to locate documents and contraband
  • Seizures: the taking of these items by the government for use as evidence in a criminal prosecution
• Requires government officials to apply for and receive a search warrant prior to a search or seizure
• Warrant must be signed by a judge, specifying the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized

Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

• Cases where a person can be said to lack a "reasonable expectation of privacy" outside the home
• Consent searches: when the owner or renter consents to the search
• Exigent circumstances: when there is a reasonable expectation that evidence may be destroyed or tampered with before a warrant can be issued
• Plain view: when items are in plain view of government officials
• Passenger compartment of a car
• Searches of people entering the United States from another country

Probable Cause

• The legal standard for determining whether a search or seizure is constitutional or a crime has been committed
• A lower threshold than the standard of proof at a criminal trial
• Critics argue that this requirement is not very meaningful, as law enforcement officers are almost always able to get a search warrant when they request one

The Exclusionary Rule

• Evidence obtained without a warrant cannot be used as evidence in a state criminal trial
• Applies to any evidence developed or discovered as a result of the illegal search or seizure
• Known as the "fruit of the poisonous tree"

Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule

• Good faith exception: when police executed warrants they believed were correctly granted but in fact were not
• Inevitable discovery: when the evidence would have been found anyway had they followed the law

Arrest Warrants

• A person cannot generally be detained by police or taken into custody without a warrant
• Most states allow police to arrest someone suspected of a felony crime without a warrant so long as probable cause exists
• Police can arrest people for minor crimes or misdemeanors they have witnessed themselves

The Rights of Suspects

• In addition to protecting personal freedoms, the Bill of Rights protects those suspected or accused of crimes from unfair or unjust treatment
• The prominence of these protections in the Bill of Rights may seem surprising, given the colonists' experience of what they believed to be unjust rule by British authorities

The Fifth Amendment

• Deals with the rights of the accused
• One of the longest amendments in the Bill of Rights
• States that a person cannot be held to answer for a capital or infamous crime unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury
• Exceptions to this rule include cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger

Grand Jury Proceedings

• Serious crimes must be prosecuted only after an indictment has been issued by a grand jury
• Exceptions to this requirement include felonies and less serious crimes
• States are not required to hold a grand jury proceeding, instead, they may require a judge to hold a preliminary hearing
• Members of the armed forces who are accused of crimes are not entitled to a grand jury proceeding

Double Jeopardy

• Protects individuals against double jeopardy, a process that subjects a suspect to prosecution twice for the same criminal act
• No one who has been acquitted of a crime can be prosecuted again for that crime
• Exceptions include prosecution at a different level of government (federal or state) and civil cases

Protection Against Self-Incrimination

• The right to remain silent and not give evidence in court or to law enforcement officers that might constitute an admission of guilt
• If a person does not testify in their own defense, the prosecution cannot use that failure to testify as evidence of guilt
• Law enforcement officials must inform suspects of their rights, including the right against self-incrimination, before being interrogated in police custody

Due Process Clause

• Prohibits the federal government from depriving people of their “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”
• Guarantees that people will be treated fairly and impartially by government officials when the government seeks to fine, imprison, or take their personal property away
• Requires government officials to establish consistent, fair procedures to decide when people’s freedoms are limited

Takings Clause

• States that “private property [cannot] be taken for public use, without just compensation”
• Protects individuals’ economic liberty: their right to obtain, use, and trade tangible and intangible property for their own benefit
• Can be viewed as a protection of economic liberty

Eminent Domain

• Allows the government to take property for public use, but requires just compensation
• Traditionally used to obtain property for transportation corridors, but increasingly used for economic development
• Has been used to take property from lower- and middle-class homeowners and given to multinational corporations or multimillionaires
• Has led to controversies and public backlash, resulting in legal changes in many states making it harder for cities to take property for economic redevelopment purposes