Civil Liberties History
A History of American Civil Liberties
A History of American Civil Liberties
The United States of America has a colorful history that much like an elaborate tapestry, is formed of events and advancements which make up its past. Each historical incident has contributed to the melting pot of culture and also the future of Americans. The history of civil liberties in the United States has significantly shaped our modern-day society. This paper explores the monumental occurrences of civil liberties before the 1930’s and after, through specific constitutional amendments, and shows the necessity to protect these rights as they are essential to the workings of a democratic government. I argue that civil liberties, while they …show more content…
originated within the foundation of the United States Constitution, evolved to the current day understanding of inalienable freedoms because of decisions regarding freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the rights of the accused or due process.
The United States Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. These civil liberties are rights or personal freedoms which each and every American benefits from (Levin-Waldman, 2012). These fundamental individual rights are so foundational to American society that the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution concentrate on them directly (The United States Constitution, n.d.). These amendments enshrine the government’s duty to defend and safeguard individual liberties which include freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and basic judicial rights (Levin-Waldman, 2012). While these amendments have been a part of the United States Constitution for hundreds of years, the path to equal enforcements and protection of these rights was a turbulent part of American history.
Even though civil liberties are defined as individual rights, these freedoms were still subject to the discrimination of the times. Most of us would agree that the right to free speech is a fundamental privilege and the first amendment provides the façade that this right clear (Loren, 1961). However, free speech is by no means an absolute right. For example in the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States, the Court ruled that free speech could be limited if it violated America’s war efforts, as in this particular case (Communications and the Law, 1999). Likewise, in the 1919 Supreme Court case of Abrams v. United States, lawmakers during this period felt there were certain restrictions on which everyone could agree (K.N.L., 1920). These recognized restrictions included the fact that such statements which violated freedom of speech had obvious criminal intent and that the law during wartime and peace time was identical (K.N.L., 1920). The 1920’s also acknowledged that these understandings were common among men specifically (K.N.L., 1920). This was consistent with the social system of the early and mid 1900’s as women and blacks were often not included nor mentioned (K.N.L., 1920). The fact that the law during this time was known and evaluated by men is an important view into how the social structure of the United States prior to 1930 affected civil liberties. The interpretation of the first amendment changed after the 1930’s into the present day understanding of this historical privilege.
A more contemporary example of the first amendment is the neo-Nazi rallies held across the United States. In September 2011, a neo-Nazi rally was planned for Labor Day weekend in West Allis, Wisconsin (Stephenson, 2011). While the group claimed to want a peaceful protest, the beliefs of the group were much more combative (Stephenson, 2011). Regardless of propaganda, with the authorization of the free speech, the group was allowed to assemble at the state fair grounds for a rally (Stephenson, 2011). Americans are not only practicing but more importantly testing first amendment rights. Even the founding father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud challenged freedom of speech, believing that one of the crucial functions of speech itself was to allow a safe outlet for aggression which was safer than physical violence (Schwartz, 1986). With each decision passed down by the Supreme Court, we learn a little more about how the events of the time affect our society and culture. Not only was the first amendment being re-analyzed by lawmakers and popular figures such as Sigmund Freud, but tested by modern organizations of Americans with deep historical beliefs such as neo-Nazis, which is all crucial to the evolution of the amendment. Freedom of speech after the 1930’s truly progressed into a civil liberty which safeguard’s not only the speakers but protects the listeners as well.
Perhaps the one of the greatest threats to American liberties came when President Woodrow Wilson and congress passed the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed shortly after the United States stepped into World War I (Cheney, 1918). Originally, this act prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, support wartime enemies of the United States, to promote disobedience in the military, or interference with military enrollment (Cheney, 1918). In 1919, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schneck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions (Cheney, 1918). The following year, congress passed a companion piece of legislation to the Espionage Act. The Sedition Act further amended the 1917 Espionage law to lock down on speech freedoms (Cheney, 1918). This 1918 amendment made it a crime to use abusive language toward the military, the government, or the flag. People lived in apprehension that they could not show an ounce of disloyalty without risk of imprisonment (Cheney, 1918). The ironic situation of this act was that the legislation further limited freedom of speech instead of promoting the liberty. In addition to sending people to jail, the Sedition Act and Espionage Act served supplementary purposes. The government also used these legislations to meddle through personal letters and packages (Garret, 1919). The Postmaster General ordered United States Postal Service employees to watch for suspicious material (Garret, 1919). The Espionage and Sedition Acts led to many arrests and impacted every American (Cheney, 1918). It is important to note that the first amendment is a civil liberty which is a type of protection against government action (Levin-Waldman, 2012). In modern day society, prisoners are subject to mail searches and many Americans often equate people serving sentences for punishable crimes to having fewer freedoms than free citizens (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d.). However it appears throughout American history, the nation has a pattern of adopting so-called freedoms and subsequently finding ways to limit the independence granted by the legislation. Another elemental civil liberty whose history is full of tribulations is the right to keep and bear arms. More commonly referred to as the second amendment, this individual freedom also went through many revolutions throughout history (The United States Constitution, n.d.). When the right to bear arms was established, the context of this liberty applied mainly to militias and an individual’s right to defend oneself and state (Emery, 1915). Prior to the 1930’s the understanding was that the right to bear arms did not include articles and weapons such as knives or brass knuckles (Emery, 1915). In addition to specifics regarding weaponry, the right to bear arms also omitted women, the blind and homeless persons (Terry, 1903). Gun control was a direct result of the pre civil war attitude towards weaponry in the hands of slaves (Terry, 1903). The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 with a genuine interest in promoting marksmanship (Squires, 2000). However, the National Rifle Association has now grown to be one of the biggest promoters of the second amendment right of citizens to lawfully bear arms (Squires, 2000). It is important to understand the basis for the second amendment in order to appreciate how this particular civil liberty has modernized.
In recent times, the right to bear arms has gone through an amazing transformation. The right to bear arms has grown from its main explanation of the law regarding militias and the implication of the Founding Father’s gun legislation (Shalhope & Cress, 1984). Gun laws protected by the United States Constitution have evolved to include such legislations and interpretations as the stand your ground law which has been made popular by the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida (Gonzalez, 2012). Just as history has played a role in shaping the culture of America, it helped shaped the nation’s democratic government. The interpretations of laws such as the right to keep and bear arms has changed and evolved throughout time, but democracy has always remained intact.
In addition to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, the United States Constitution protects an individual’s judicial rights. Those who have been accused of crimes are allotted certain due process rights (Levin-Waldman, 2012). The sixth amendment ensures that all Americans involved in criminal prosecutions, shall be afford the right to trial by an impartial jury, along with the right to be informed of the charges he or she is being accused of, to the opportunity to confront witnesses, and to be assisted by counsel (The United States Constitution, n.d.) The 1876 Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Cruikshank overturned several convictions of conspiracy due to the lack of due process (I.F.R., 1874). Due process liberties were created to ensure that the laws were applied impartially and equally to all people (Laylin & Tuttle, 1922). Again it is important to observe as with previous civil liberties, the journey of due process was a complicated voyage.
Due process was a civil liberty which experienced many changes since its creation, similar to the preceding civil liberties discussed. Likewise in the 2000 case of Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether the initial Miranda decision was constitutional (Levin-Waldman, 2012). Until the 1963 ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, state-level judicial procedures did not ensure that the accused who could not afford representation would have counsel (Manley & Brown, 2007). These judicial rights are perhaps some of the more publicized of the civil liberties in today’s society. From the highly televised court trials of O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony, these examples of the judicial process should serve as a reminder that regardless of guilt or innocence, the accused are granted certain rights which are faithfully protected by America’s democratic system.
During times of crisis and historical turmoil, civil liberties are greatly tested.
For example, habeas corpus has evolved throughout history to become an institution within the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution for all Americans. The term habeas corpus is Latin and translates to having the body (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important examination on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. Habeas corpus is akin to any other civil liberty, which cannot be reduced by the federal government (Levin-Waldman, 2012). The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state actions (Cornell University Law School, 2010). Habeas corpus prevents individuals from being arrested and held without cause. Without habeas corpus, political prisoners could be detained indefinitely. Ironically enough while America was attempting to define its own power, the foundation for habeas corpus during wartime was built on English tradition (Levin-Waldman, 2012). Just as the Parliament struggled against the authority of the British Crown, the citizens of the United States likewise struggle against governmental …show more content…
authority. While the term habeas corpus has evolved much like humankind and so many of our civil liberties, so has how one defines it.
Habeas corpus and the war on terror have only grown increasingly relevant as days pass. One of the more well-known uses of habeas corpus stems from the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. It was on the wake of this historical tragedy that President Bush not only launched a war on terrorism, but the USA PATRIOIT Act of 2001 was passed. As a wartime measure, the PATRIOT Act allowed federal authorities to arrest and hold suspected terrorists without filing formal charges. Individuals detained on suspicion of terrorism were not entitled to an attorney (Levin-Waldman, 2012). In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled the prisoners had limited rights at his or her disposal with which to challenge the enemy combatant characterization (Foley, 2007). The debate over habeas corpus has erupted in an emotional time of healing for United States citizens. What is difficult to grasp is that in the midst of tragedy, in the center of emotional turmoil, in the middle of a nation full of questions, habeas corpus is a civil liberty, like many others that desperately required clarification in a changing
society. As shown, the origins of civil liberties were born within the words of the United States Constitution, but Supreme Court Decisions on freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the rights of the accused bestowed these liberties upon all Americans over time. This history of civil liberties in the United States has significantly shaped our modern-day society. Even though many constitutional amendments and ratifications were primarily formed to protect the rights of white men, these fundamentals have changed over time to include the rights of all Americans. Likewise, the meaning of the Constitution will continue to be examined as our society develops (Levin-Waldman, 2012). What is perhaps most interesting is that regardless of the time period, there have been those who have pushed the envelope, but in spite of these actions there are always certain civil liberties which cannot be withheld. Preserving civil liberties are essential to the workings of a democratic government and while there were many bumps along the road to protection of these freedoms, our history has shown that these rights have always prevailed and will continue to do so.
References
Bowels, M.D. (2011). American history 1865-present: End of isolation. (Ashford University ed.) San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc
Cheney, C.H. (Jan., 1918). The Espionage Act. The American Journal of International Law, 12(1), 142-146. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2187619
Cornell University Law School (2010, August 19). Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.) Visiting, telephone, e-mail & correspondence. Retrieved from http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/visiting.jsp
Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009-10069. Document ID: 1466824931. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Garrett, G.P. (May, 1919). Free speech and the Espionage Act. Journal of the American Institution of Criminal Law and Criminology, 10(1), 71-75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1133579
Gonzalez, G. (2012, Apr 20). Trayvon martin: An unnecessary death. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
I.F.R. (Oct., 1874). Circuit Court of the United States. District of Lousiana. The United States v. Cruikshank. The American Law Register (1852-1891). 22(10), 630-644. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3303600
K.N.L. (Jan., 1920). Free speech in time of peace. The Yale Law Journal, 29(3), 337-344. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/787171
Laylin, C.E. and Tuttle, A.H. (April 1922). Due process and punishment. Michigan Law
Review, 20(6), 614-645. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1278292
Levin-Waldman, O.M. (2012) American government. (Ashford University ed.) San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc
Loren, B.P. (Dec., 1961). The Supreme Court and state civil liberties. The Western Political
Quarterly. 14(4), 825-838. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/445085
Manley, I. W., & Brown, J. (2007). The Supreme Court of Florida, 1917-1972. Florida Bar Journal, 81(2), 49-50. Retrieved from Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford Online Library
Procter, B. (2001). Flag burning and free speech: The case of texas v. johnson. History, 29(3), 101-101. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Schenck v. united states, baer v. same. (1999). Communications and the Law, 21(4), 39-44. Retrieved from Proquest Central Database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Schwartz, J. (Dec., 1986). Freud and freedom of speech. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1227-1248. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960865
Squires, P. (2000). Gun culture or gun control: Firearms, violence and society. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Stephenson, C. (2011, August 26). West Allis braces for neo-Nazi rally. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/128512053.html
Terry, H.T. (Feb., 1903). Legal duties and rights. The Yale Law Journal. 12(4), 185-212
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/781938
The Constitution of the United States. (n.d.). Bill of Rights. Retrieved from:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
[pic]
A History of American Civil Liberties
The United States of America has a colorful history that much like an elaborate tapestry, is formed of events and advancements which make up its past. Each historical incident has contributed to the melting pot of culture and also the future of Americans. The history of civil liberties in the United States has significantly shaped our modern-day society. This paper explores the monumental occurrences of civil liberties before the 1930’s and after, through specific constitutional amendments, and shows the necessity to protect these rights as they are essential to the workings of a democratic government. I argue that civil liberties, while they …show more content…
originated within the foundation of the United States Constitution, evolved to the current day understanding of inalienable freedoms because of decisions regarding freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the rights of the accused or due process.
The United States Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. These civil liberties are rights or personal freedoms which each and every American benefits from (Levin-Waldman, 2012). These fundamental individual rights are so foundational to American society that the first eight amendments of the United States Constitution concentrate on them directly (The United States Constitution, n.d.). These amendments enshrine the government’s duty to defend and safeguard individual liberties which include freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and basic judicial rights (Levin-Waldman, 2012). While these amendments have been a part of the United States Constitution for hundreds of years, the path to equal enforcements and protection of these rights was a turbulent part of American history.
Even though civil liberties are defined as individual rights, these freedoms were still subject to the discrimination of the times. Most of us would agree that the right to free speech is a fundamental privilege and the first amendment provides the façade that this right clear (Loren, 1961). However, free speech is by no means an absolute right. For example in the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States, the Court ruled that free speech could be limited if it violated America’s war efforts, as in this particular case (Communications and the Law, 1999). Likewise, in the 1919 Supreme Court case of Abrams v. United States, lawmakers during this period felt there were certain restrictions on which everyone could agree (K.N.L., 1920). These recognized restrictions included the fact that such statements which violated freedom of speech had obvious criminal intent and that the law during wartime and peace time was identical (K.N.L., 1920). The 1920’s also acknowledged that these understandings were common among men specifically (K.N.L., 1920). This was consistent with the social system of the early and mid 1900’s as women and blacks were often not included nor mentioned (K.N.L., 1920). The fact that the law during this time was known and evaluated by men is an important view into how the social structure of the United States prior to 1930 affected civil liberties. The interpretation of the first amendment changed after the 1930’s into the present day understanding of this historical privilege.
A more contemporary example of the first amendment is the neo-Nazi rallies held across the United States. In September 2011, a neo-Nazi rally was planned for Labor Day weekend in West Allis, Wisconsin (Stephenson, 2011). While the group claimed to want a peaceful protest, the beliefs of the group were much more combative (Stephenson, 2011). Regardless of propaganda, with the authorization of the free speech, the group was allowed to assemble at the state fair grounds for a rally (Stephenson, 2011). Americans are not only practicing but more importantly testing first amendment rights. Even the founding father of psychoanalysis Sigmund Freud challenged freedom of speech, believing that one of the crucial functions of speech itself was to allow a safe outlet for aggression which was safer than physical violence (Schwartz, 1986). With each decision passed down by the Supreme Court, we learn a little more about how the events of the time affect our society and culture. Not only was the first amendment being re-analyzed by lawmakers and popular figures such as Sigmund Freud, but tested by modern organizations of Americans with deep historical beliefs such as neo-Nazis, which is all crucial to the evolution of the amendment. Freedom of speech after the 1930’s truly progressed into a civil liberty which safeguard’s not only the speakers but protects the listeners as well.
Perhaps the one of the greatest threats to American liberties came when President Woodrow Wilson and congress passed the Espionage Act. The Espionage Act of 1917 was passed shortly after the United States stepped into World War I (Cheney, 1918). Originally, this act prohibited any attempt to interfere with military operations, support wartime enemies of the United States, to promote disobedience in the military, or interference with military enrollment (Cheney, 1918). In 1919, the United States Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Schneck v. United States that the act did not violate the freedom of speech of those convicted under its provisions (Cheney, 1918). The following year, congress passed a companion piece of legislation to the Espionage Act. The Sedition Act further amended the 1917 Espionage law to lock down on speech freedoms (Cheney, 1918). This 1918 amendment made it a crime to use abusive language toward the military, the government, or the flag. People lived in apprehension that they could not show an ounce of disloyalty without risk of imprisonment (Cheney, 1918). The ironic situation of this act was that the legislation further limited freedom of speech instead of promoting the liberty. In addition to sending people to jail, the Sedition Act and Espionage Act served supplementary purposes. The government also used these legislations to meddle through personal letters and packages (Garret, 1919). The Postmaster General ordered United States Postal Service employees to watch for suspicious material (Garret, 1919). The Espionage and Sedition Acts led to many arrests and impacted every American (Cheney, 1918). It is important to note that the first amendment is a civil liberty which is a type of protection against government action (Levin-Waldman, 2012). In modern day society, prisoners are subject to mail searches and many Americans often equate people serving sentences for punishable crimes to having fewer freedoms than free citizens (Federal Bureau of Prisons, n.d.). However it appears throughout American history, the nation has a pattern of adopting so-called freedoms and subsequently finding ways to limit the independence granted by the legislation. Another elemental civil liberty whose history is full of tribulations is the right to keep and bear arms. More commonly referred to as the second amendment, this individual freedom also went through many revolutions throughout history (The United States Constitution, n.d.). When the right to bear arms was established, the context of this liberty applied mainly to militias and an individual’s right to defend oneself and state (Emery, 1915). Prior to the 1930’s the understanding was that the right to bear arms did not include articles and weapons such as knives or brass knuckles (Emery, 1915). In addition to specifics regarding weaponry, the right to bear arms also omitted women, the blind and homeless persons (Terry, 1903). Gun control was a direct result of the pre civil war attitude towards weaponry in the hands of slaves (Terry, 1903). The National Rifle Association was founded in 1871 with a genuine interest in promoting marksmanship (Squires, 2000). However, the National Rifle Association has now grown to be one of the biggest promoters of the second amendment right of citizens to lawfully bear arms (Squires, 2000). It is important to understand the basis for the second amendment in order to appreciate how this particular civil liberty has modernized.
In recent times, the right to bear arms has gone through an amazing transformation. The right to bear arms has grown from its main explanation of the law regarding militias and the implication of the Founding Father’s gun legislation (Shalhope & Cress, 1984). Gun laws protected by the United States Constitution have evolved to include such legislations and interpretations as the stand your ground law which has been made popular by the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida (Gonzalez, 2012). Just as history has played a role in shaping the culture of America, it helped shaped the nation’s democratic government. The interpretations of laws such as the right to keep and bear arms has changed and evolved throughout time, but democracy has always remained intact.
In addition to freedom of speech and the right to bear arms, the United States Constitution protects an individual’s judicial rights. Those who have been accused of crimes are allotted certain due process rights (Levin-Waldman, 2012). The sixth amendment ensures that all Americans involved in criminal prosecutions, shall be afford the right to trial by an impartial jury, along with the right to be informed of the charges he or she is being accused of, to the opportunity to confront witnesses, and to be assisted by counsel (The United States Constitution, n.d.) The 1876 Supreme Court decision in the case of United States v. Cruikshank overturned several convictions of conspiracy due to the lack of due process (I.F.R., 1874). Due process liberties were created to ensure that the laws were applied impartially and equally to all people (Laylin & Tuttle, 1922). Again it is important to observe as with previous civil liberties, the journey of due process was a complicated voyage.
Due process was a civil liberty which experienced many changes since its creation, similar to the preceding civil liberties discussed. Likewise in the 2000 case of Dickerson v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether the initial Miranda decision was constitutional (Levin-Waldman, 2012). Until the 1963 ruling in Gideon v. Wainwright, state-level judicial procedures did not ensure that the accused who could not afford representation would have counsel (Manley & Brown, 2007). These judicial rights are perhaps some of the more publicized of the civil liberties in today’s society. From the highly televised court trials of O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony, these examples of the judicial process should serve as a reminder that regardless of guilt or innocence, the accused are granted certain rights which are faithfully protected by America’s democratic system.
During times of crisis and historical turmoil, civil liberties are greatly tested.
For example, habeas corpus has evolved throughout history to become an institution within the civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution for all Americans. The term habeas corpus is Latin and translates to having the body (Cornell University Law School, 2010). The writ of habeas corpus serves as an important examination on the manner in which state courts pay respect to federal constitutional rights. Habeas corpus is akin to any other civil liberty, which cannot be reduced by the federal government (Levin-Waldman, 2012). The writ of habeas corpus is the fundamental instrument for safeguarding individual freedom against arbitrary and lawless state actions (Cornell University Law School, 2010). Habeas corpus prevents individuals from being arrested and held without cause. Without habeas corpus, political prisoners could be detained indefinitely. Ironically enough while America was attempting to define its own power, the foundation for habeas corpus during wartime was built on English tradition (Levin-Waldman, 2012). Just as the Parliament struggled against the authority of the British Crown, the citizens of the United States likewise struggle against governmental …show more content…
authority. While the term habeas corpus has evolved much like humankind and so many of our civil liberties, so has how one defines it.
Habeas corpus and the war on terror have only grown increasingly relevant as days pass. One of the more well-known uses of habeas corpus stems from the September 11, 2001 attacks against the United States. It was on the wake of this historical tragedy that President Bush not only launched a war on terrorism, but the USA PATRIOIT Act of 2001 was passed. As a wartime measure, the PATRIOT Act allowed federal authorities to arrest and hold suspected terrorists without filing formal charges. Individuals detained on suspicion of terrorism were not entitled to an attorney (Levin-Waldman, 2012). In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507 (2004), the Supreme Court ruled the prisoners had limited rights at his or her disposal with which to challenge the enemy combatant characterization (Foley, 2007). The debate over habeas corpus has erupted in an emotional time of healing for United States citizens. What is difficult to grasp is that in the midst of tragedy, in the center of emotional turmoil, in the middle of a nation full of questions, habeas corpus is a civil liberty, like many others that desperately required clarification in a changing
society. As shown, the origins of civil liberties were born within the words of the United States Constitution, but Supreme Court Decisions on freedom of speech, the right to keep and bear arms, and the rights of the accused bestowed these liberties upon all Americans over time. This history of civil liberties in the United States has significantly shaped our modern-day society. Even though many constitutional amendments and ratifications were primarily formed to protect the rights of white men, these fundamentals have changed over time to include the rights of all Americans. Likewise, the meaning of the Constitution will continue to be examined as our society develops (Levin-Waldman, 2012). What is perhaps most interesting is that regardless of the time period, there have been those who have pushed the envelope, but in spite of these actions there are always certain civil liberties which cannot be withheld. Preserving civil liberties are essential to the workings of a democratic government and while there were many bumps along the road to protection of these freedoms, our history has shown that these rights have always prevailed and will continue to do so.
References
Bowels, M.D. (2011). American history 1865-present: End of isolation. (Ashford University ed.) San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc
Cheney, C.H. (Jan., 1918). The Espionage Act. The American Journal of International Law, 12(1), 142-146. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/2187619
Cornell University Law School (2010, August 19). Habeas Corpus. Retrieved from http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/habeas_corpus
Federal Bureau of Prisons. (n.d.) Visiting, telephone, e-mail & correspondence. Retrieved from http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/visiting.jsp
Foley, B. (2007). Guantanamo and beyond: Dangers of rigging the rules. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 97(4), 1009-10069. Document ID: 1466824931. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Garrett, G.P. (May, 1919). Free speech and the Espionage Act. Journal of the American Institution of Criminal Law and Criminology, 10(1), 71-75. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1133579
Gonzalez, G. (2012, Apr 20). Trayvon martin: An unnecessary death. La Prensa San Diego. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
I.F.R. (Oct., 1874). Circuit Court of the United States. District of Lousiana. The United States v. Cruikshank. The American Law Register (1852-1891). 22(10), 630-644. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/3303600
K.N.L. (Jan., 1920). Free speech in time of peace. The Yale Law Journal, 29(3), 337-344. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/787171
Laylin, C.E. and Tuttle, A.H. (April 1922). Due process and punishment. Michigan Law
Review, 20(6), 614-645. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1278292
Levin-Waldman, O.M. (2012) American government. (Ashford University ed.) San Diego, CA: Bridgepoint Education, Inc
Loren, B.P. (Dec., 1961). The Supreme Court and state civil liberties. The Western Political
Quarterly. 14(4), 825-838. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/445085
Manley, I. W., & Brown, J. (2007). The Supreme Court of Florida, 1917-1972. Florida Bar Journal, 81(2), 49-50. Retrieved from Retrieved from Academic Search Premier (EBSCOhost) database, in the Ashford Online Library
Procter, B. (2001). Flag burning and free speech: The case of texas v. johnson. History, 29(3), 101-101. Retrieved from ProQuest Central database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Schenck v. united states, baer v. same. (1999). Communications and the Law, 21(4), 39-44. Retrieved from Proquest Central Database, in the Ashford Online Library.
Schwartz, J. (Dec., 1986). Freud and freedom of speech. The American Political Science Review, 80(4), 1227-1248. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960865
Squires, P. (2000). Gun culture or gun control: Firearms, violence and society. Florence, KY, USA: Routledge.
Stephenson, C. (2011, August 26). West Allis braces for neo-Nazi rally. Journal Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/128512053.html
Terry, H.T. (Feb., 1903). Legal duties and rights. The Yale Law Journal. 12(4), 185-212
Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/781938
The Constitution of the United States. (n.d.). Bill of Rights. Retrieved from:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
[pic]