Civil Rights Vs Civil Liberties

The terms, civil liberties and civil rights, might be closely related to one another, but have often been inadvertently misused. Civil rights are actions within the law that the United States government uses (meaning that they have the right to intervene/enforce) to establish conditions that are equal for all human beings. For instance, citizens of the United States, with the proper qualifications, have the right to vote, meaning that right can be enforced through government intervention. Another common example would include freedom from employment discrimination founded on differences of disability, race, age, or gender (Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties). Two famous events that heavily tested our civil rights would include Hernandez v. Texas,
which protected Mexican-Americans from class distinction based on racial prejudices, and The Civil Rights Act of 1866 that granted equal citizenship for African Americans. Compared to civil rights, civil liberties allude to protections against government intervention and grant all U.S.
citizens “liberty” from restraints/actions enforced by the federal or state government(s). Common examples include the freedom of religion, which means that the government cannot legally interfere with (or dictate) a citizen’s choice of worship/religion, and the right to property, which prevents human beings from acquiring or trading items already owned by another individual (civil liberties). Affairs such as Marbury v. Madison or the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 famously tested our civil liberties by establishing the procedure of “judicial review” and compensation for the violated liberties of lawful citizens from previous events in U.S. history. Even though civil liberties and civil rights have many similarities, history has proven that they are two very different concepts based on the U.S. constitution, legislation, and various landmark court
cases. Civil liberties were first established in the Bill of Rights, or the first 10 amendments of the constitution of the United States. Out of all liberties granted by the constitution, the ones that are most commonly known are the freedom of speech, the right to bear arms, and the right to privacy (Williams). The first amendment guarantees U.S. citizens freedom of speech, meaning that they can legally express their opinions, as well as peacefully protest against the government without punishment. Through this liberty, book authors are allowed to express their own personal interests/ideas on anything they are able to publish, children in educational institutions can refuse to say the pledge of allegiance, and Muslims, or any other religious organizations for that matter, can freely spread their teachings. The second amendment allows the right to bear arms, which enables Americans to lawfully own any legal firearms they choose to purchase. Many states have challenged this liberty by attempting to completely ban firearm usage in their individual territories, but it wasn’t until 2008 when the Supreme Court ruled that the right to own a gun was not only a right of the U.S. military, but a citizen’s as well. The ninth amendment guarantees the freedom of privacy, which basically ensures that if a specific right is not stated within the Bill of Rights, then that does not completely signify it is not guaranteed to the people of the United States. This liberty is what allows pregnant women to choose to obtain an abortion (if the fetus has existed within a certain time limit), parents to lawfully discipline their children the way they see fit, and divorce amongst married couples. Although these liberties have been disputed numerously throughout history, they have always been stated in the Constitution and have remained without change since their ratification in 1791 (Bill of Rights). In 1803, civil liberties were famously challenged during the landmark court case, Marbury v.
Madison. At the time, the secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission of the District of Columbia’s designated justice of the peace, William Marbury. In response, Marbury requested a writ of mandamus (or “an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion” (Mandamus).) to make commission delivery official amongst all members in government. Chief justice John Marshall refused Marbury’s request and concluded that the Supreme Court was not given the power by the Constitution to supply writs of mandamus even if elected officials, such as Marbury (or any other government officials), were entitled to their commissions (Marbury v. Madison). Even though the Supreme Court was denied power at the time, its power increased in the long-run by establishing that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (The Creation of the Federal Courts). Basically, the federal courts were given the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation and the concept of “judicial review” (which means that federal courts gained the power to null Congressional acts that conflicted with the Constitution) was officially established as a common practice during the lawmaking
process. Shortly after the Japanese bombing of Pearl Harbor in 1941, Executive Order 9066 was signed by President Franklin Roosevelt to relocate all Japanese-Americans to poorly managed internment camps by the West Coast. Fueled by racial prejudice, over 120,000 Japanese-American citizens were forced by the federal government to remain in these camps until World War II ended, which was considered one the most immoral violations of civil liberties in U.S. history (Japanese-American Relocation). Technically, the government had no right to intervene in the lives of these lawful citizens and a vast majority of their civil liberties were unquestionably violated. Specifically, their freedom of religion was breached since the camps prohibited Shintoism and Buddhism from being practiced. The freedom of speech was also restricted to them on account of the forbiddance to openly speak Japanese during enforced public meetings, which was also a violation of their right to assemble. Lastly, everyone held inside the camps were denied their right to legal counsel, which prevented them from obtaining any legal representation as well as a fair trial. Overall, a total of eighteen rights and freedoms were infringed for all the Japanese-Americans contained inside the internment camps (Ostgaard, Smart, McGuire, Lanz, Hodson). It wasn’t until the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 when thousands of Japanese-Americans received compensation for the unethical treatment that occurred. The act specified that “a grave injustice was done to both citizens and permanent resident aliens of Japanese ancestry by the evacuation, relocation, and internment of civilians during World War II” and that “these actions were carried out without adequate security reasons and without any acts of espionage or sabotage, and were motivated largely by racial prejudice, wartime hysteria, and a failure of political leadership”. As a result, over 82,000 Japanese-Americans were compensated with $20,000 checks and letters of apology for the violations done to their civil liberties (Yamato).