Fluent Essays

Directions: Write a 400 word, APA-formatted expository essay that addresses the following: Identify the distinction between civil liberties and civil rights. Identify where civil liberties are addressed within the U.S. Constitution. Identify where civil rights are addressed within the U.S. Constitution. Select two Supreme Court cases from the Supreme Court Case List: one case that concerns civil liberties and one case that concerns civil rights. Civil Liberties Civil Rights For both selected Supreme Court cases: Identify the historical circumstances of the Supreme Court Case. Speculate as to why the Supreme Court justices decided to hear this case. Explain the Supreme Court’s decision. Explain how this Supreme Court case discussed the U.S. Constitution, subsequent federal and state laws, and/or lower court judicial decisions. How did this Supreme Court case affect the legislative, executive, and/or judicial branch? Evaluate the resulting impact of the Supreme Court case on U.S. society. Do you agree or disagree with the Supreme Court decision? Evaluate the resulting impact of the Supreme Court case on you. Why did the Supreme Court case interest you? How does this Supreme Court case affect you and society? Support your analysis with information from the text and at least two additional academic source. Your paper should also meet the following requirements: APA format. Title page. Reference page. APA citations. Double spaced sentences. 12-point Times New Roman font. Standard English grammar conventions. Correct grammar. Correct punctuation and spelling. Logical, well ordered sentences.1 Supreme Court Cases: Civil Liberties Case Link Description Schenck v. United States (1919) “During World War I, socialists Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer distributed leaflets declaring that the draft violated the Thirteenth Amendment prohibition against involuntary servitude. The leaflets urged the public to disobey the draft, but advised only peaceful action. Schenck was charged with conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act of 1917 by attempting to cause insubordination in the military and to obstruct recruitment. Schenck and Baer were convicted of violating this law and appealed on the grounds that the statute violated the First Amendment.” (Oyez, n.d.) Engel v. Vitale (1962) “The New York State Board of Regents authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. A group of organizations joined forces in challenging the prayer, claiming that it violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The New York Court of Appeals rejected their arguments.” (Oyez, n.d.) Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) “Clarence Earl Gideon was charged in Florida state court with felony breaking and entering. When he appeared in court without a lawyer, Gideon requested that the court appoint one for him. According to Florida state law, however, an attorney may only be appointed to an indigent defendant in capital cases, so the trial court did not appoint one. Gideon represented himself in trial. He was found guilty and sentenced to five years in prison. Gideon filed a habeas corpus petition in the Florida Supreme Court, arguing that the trial courts decision violated his constitutional right to be represented by counsel. The Florida Supreme Court denied habeas corpus relief.” (Oyez, n.d.) Miranda v. Arizona (1966) “This case represents the consolidation of four cases, in each of which the defendant confessed guilt after being subjected to a variety of interrogation techniques without being informed of his Fifth Amendment rights during an interrogation. On March 13, 1963, Ernesto Miranda was arrested in his house and brought to the police station where he was questioned by police officers in connection with a kidnapping and rape. After two hours of interrogation, the police obtained a written confession from Miranda. The written confession was admitted into evidence at trial despite the objection of the defense attorney and the fact that the police officers admitted that they had not https://www.oyez.org/cases/1900-1940/249us47 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1961/468 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/759 2 advised Miranda of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. The jury found Miranda guilty. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona affirmed and held that Miranda’s constitutional rights were not violated because he did not specifically request counsel.” (Oyez, n.d.) Roe v. Wade (1973) “In 11 Supreme Court Cases: Civil Rights Case Link Description Worcester v. Georgia (1832) “In September 1831, Samuel A. Worcester and others, all non-Native Americans, were indicted in the supreme court for the county of Gwinnett in the state of Georgia for residing within the limits of the Cherokee nation without a license and without having taken the oath to support and defend the constitution and laws of the state of Georgia. They were indicted under an 1830 act of the Georgia legislature entitled an act to prevent the exercise of assumed and arbitrary power by all persons, under pretext of authority from the Cherokee Indians. Among other things, Worcester argued that the state could not maintain the prosecution because the statute violated the Constitution, treaties between the United States and the Cherokee nation, and an act of Congress entitled an act to regulate trade and intercourse with the Indian tribes. Worcester was convicted and sentenced to hard labour in the penitentiary for four years. The U.S. Supreme Court received the case on a writ of error.” (Oyez, n.d.) Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) “Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. From 1833 to 1843, he resided in Illinois (a free state) and in the Louisiana Territory, where slavery was forbidden by the Missouri Compromise of 1820. After returning to Missouri, Scott filed suit in Missouri court for his freedom, claiming that his residence in free territory made him a free man. After losing, Scott brought a new suit in federal court. Scotts master maintained that no “negro” or descendant of slaves could be a citizen in the sense of Article III of the Constitution.” (Oyez, n.d.) Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) “Louisiana enacted the Separate Car Act, which required separate railway cars for blacks and whites. In 1892, Homer Plessy – who was seven-eighths Caucasian – agreed to participate in a test to challenge the Act. He was solicited by the Comite des Citoyens (Committee of Citizens), a group of New Orleans residents who sought to repeal the Act. They asked Plessy, who was technically black under Louisiana law, to sit in a whites only car of a Louisiana train. The railroad cooperated because it thought the Act imposed unnecessary costs via the purchase of additional railroad cars. When Plessy was told to vacate the whites-only car, he refused and was arrested. At trial, Plessy’s lawyers argued that the Separate Car Act violated the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments. The https://www.oyez.org/cases/1789-1850/31us515 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/60us393 https://www.oyez.org/cases/1850-1900/163us537 2 judge found that Louisiana could enforce this law insofar as it affected railroads within its boundaries. Plessy was convicted.” (Oyez, n.d.) Korematsu v. United States (1944) “In response to the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor during World War II, the U.S. government decided to require Japanese-America