Civil Liberties vs Civil Rights, Do You Know the Difference?

 

Answer: Civil Liberties protect individuals from governmental interference. Civil Rights are government guarantees of Political Equality. Civil rights tend to apply to groups, civil liberties are individual protections.

The purpose that brought the fourteenth amendment into being was equality before the law “equality” not separation was written into the law.

When Civil Liberties are violated by Government: As long as the public is caught up in demanding bigger subsidies and more social benefits, the prospects for regaining a country that values civil liberties will never be realized.

Who really cares about civil liberties in a society that puts government as the final arbitrator of authority? Well, sadly the prospects for a rebirth in recognizing that individual liberties are the basis for a civilized union are more remote now than at any time in the last half-century. Most people view civil liberties as defined by protecting the personage. Notwithstanding, constitutional freedom has an important component in maintaining a just and functioning government regime. Sinking into a despotic authoritarianism is the expected risk when governments go amok. However, inadequate attention is given to the discussion and study of what constitutes a responsible state power.

The power elite that rule the corridors of administration operate by the principle that the supremacy of the state is the cardinal imperative. Holding “public servants” accountable for committing corrupt offenses falls to the bottom of the official duties list. Citing the endless examples of abuses seems to be unnecessary when the objective is to delineate a reasonable standard for implementing the public trust.

Dismiss the sideway argument that civil liberties must be balanced against the need for state security is imperative. Operating by the maxim that authentic security can only be achieved when the natural rights of CITIZENS from the nation are preserved and protected is the only path for a rational culture.

Regretfully that measure of social compatibility no longer exists in America. Those entrusted to uphold the constitution actually conduct their obligations as systemic lawbreakers. It is easy to ignore the plight of private subjects since they possess little effective influence much less capability for altering public policy.

This fact of circumstance seems instinctive to the ruling class. The niceties’ of the democratic process is a mere nuance to the much more important work of running the world. When the public relations machine from the propaganda apologists spurt out the mantra of civil right violations for the downtrodden and underprivileged, they are really saying that the individual is so inept and incapable of making their own way that the government must intervene and provide a social safety net that only benefits the bureaucracy.

My fellow denizens, most of you never learned the essence of personal responsibility. Without this understanding how is it possible to hold your selected representatives to fulfill their office requirements?

As the first anniversary of the Donald Trump election approaches, a distinctive disappointment hits the ranks of the deplorables! That esteemed former Senator from the great State of Alabama demonstrates that upholding the civil liberties of the public is not a prerequisite for the token head of the Department of Injustice. Supporting civil forfeiture dictates is a fundamental abeyance of due process.

Session’s pattern of recusal deems his wherewithal to be the head of the DOJ impossible. The inability of removing Obama holdovers or simply entrenched careerist of the deep state illustrates that draining the swamp cannot be achieved when that task is assigned to professional politicians. Upholding the law is too important to entrust lawyers to administer the prosecution, or lack thereof; of the crooks and criminals that make up the ranks of government.

Lest one forgets Forbes list of AG Eric Holder’s Top 10 Rule-of-Law Violations and Jay Sekulow’s assessment that Attorney General Lynch Must Resign argues, the Attorney General’s office has been a cesspool violator from the rule of law for quite some time.

And who among sincere Americans has confidence in the judicial courts to rule against the government which employs them? Oh yes, all those deep state bighearted federal magistrates love to disrupt Trump’s immigration authority, but the underlying issue is that upholding the genuine national interests has nothing to do with the way these self-aggrandize Judge Dredds operate.

If a government is unwilling to police their own kind, it loses any rightful authority they allege they have to impose their command over ordinary citizens.

Only by cleaning up the permanent con game can the righteous civil liberties of the entire SOCIETY be achieved. The ruling elite has never been the champion of the masses. As for the limousine liberals who keep getting re-elected, few if any walk the walk of a true civil libertarian. This reality brings forth another crucial factor.

Most mentally challenged popular culture absorbers are too ignorant in their understanding of history, political hardball and philosophical dynamism that made America unique and profoundly different from the tyrannical establishments that keep their people enslaved.

Regard for others is easily sacrificed when so many have little to no respect for themselves. The latest Antifa domestic terror provides proof positive that civil liberties are unknown to the Marxist thugs who are funded by the Soros globalist network.

As the Statesman reports in, Antifa group protests Trump administration as counterprotesters wave Confederate flag at Austin City Hall, “Counter protesters outnumbered 3-to-1 the anti-fascism group that gathered at Austin City Hall on Saturday to protest the Trump Administration.”

Populist disgust for such zealot nihilists should not be dismissed. Average hard working and exploited law-abiding citizens know intuitively that the culprits for the rave of identity political violence stem from the archaists who seek the overthrow of our constitutional republic.

However, what is buried deep within the official narrative that describes this social unrest is that the most entrenched corruptors inside the government actually want to see the demise of federalism. What they seek is an all supreme federal technocrat bureaucracy. With the elimination of States’ Rights, separations of powers and constitutional Bill of Rights protections; the oligarch patrons, who maintain their influence and power want a controlled dialectic conflict to prevent any real meaningful reform.

The essential miscarriage of justice is that the people’s civil liberties are minimized if not entirely eliminated. While it is relatively easy to identify specific instances when an individual has their civil liberty violated, little attention is given to the specific forfeiture of societal collective rights when the enforcement system extinguishes the flame of liberty.

Until the traditional values of civil liberties in all its forms are accepted, the offenses from every level of government will never be resolved. People embody natural rights, not corporations or governmental agencies. The gatekeepers of the imperial state want to erase the idea of Thomas Jefferson’s Tree of Liberty from the memory banks of cultural consciousness.

Only popular outrage and adversarial action can achieve and hold public officials accountable. Looking to the government for protecting your rights is naive and foolish. Public assemblage in an orderly confrontation needs to demonstrate that civil disobedience is the needed and adopted tactic to shut down the tyrannical central government.

As long as the public is caught up in demanding bigger subsidies and more social benefits, the prospects for regaining a country that values civil liberties will never be realized. The choice is yours. Exist as an enslaved puppet or regain your human dignity and live like a free individual. Prospects to achieve this objective are on borrowed time. The enemy of the American people is the swamp.

 

Civil Liberties and Rights of the Accused

1. Civil Liberties and Rights of the Accused

 

 

 

 

2. Civil Liberties vs. Civil Rights • The gov’t has the power to rule over citizens, but its power has limits – Civil liberties – the Constitutional protections of citizens’ freedoms from gov’t abuse – are found in the Bill of Rights – Civil rights – gov’t policies that protect individuals from discrimination by the gov’t or other individuals

 

 

 

3. A Note About Rights • Although people have rights, no rights are absolute (you CAN’T just do whatever you want!) • When your rights get in the way of someone else’s rights, they aren’t rights anymore

 

 

 

4. Federalism and Rights • The Bill of Rights (first 10 amendments) originally only applied to the national gov’t • The 14th Amendment requires state gov’ts to follow the Bill of Rights just like the national gov’t (known as the incorporation doctrine)

 

 

 

5. 1st Amendment – The Freedom of Religion • Establishment Clause – the gov’t cannot establish a national religion • Free Exercise Clause – the gov’t cannot choose to get in the way of your practice of religion

 

 

 

6. Separation of Church and State • The gov’t and religion are separated by the Constitution • They can interact, but one cannot control the other

 

 

 

 

7. Religion and Schools • Parochial school – schools based on a religion (ex: Catholic schools) • Public schools cannot encourage religion; activities must be student-led

 

 

 

 

8. The Lemon Test • (From Lemon v. Kurtzman) • In order for a school to get aid from the gov’t, the money… 1.) Cannot be used for religious purposes 2.) Cannot encourage or discourage religion 3.) Cannot entangle the gov’t up in religion

 

 

 

9. The Free Exercise Clause • You have the right to believe and practice your religion as you wish (gov’t can’t get in the way of this) • But your practice of religion CANNOT: – Violate criminal laws – Offend public morals – Threaten people’s safety

 

 

 

10. CLASS SUPREME COURT “OYEZ, OYEZ, OYEZ!”

 

 

 

 

11. Employment Division v. Smith (1989) Facts of the Case • Two Native Americans who worked as counselors for a private drug rehabilitation organization, ingested peyote — a powerful hallucinogen — as part of their religious ceremonies as members of the Native American Church. As a result of this conduct, the rehabilitation organization fired the counselors. The counselors filed a claim for unemployment compensation. The government denied them benefits because the reason for their dismissal was considered work-related “misconduct.” On remand, the Oregon Supreme Court concluded that while Oregon drug law prohibited the consumption of illegal drugs for sacramental religious uses, this prohibition violated the free exercise clause. • Question: Can a state deny unemployment benefits to a worker fired for using illegal drugs for religious purposes?

12. Engel v. Vitale (1961) Facts of the Case • The Board of Regents for the State of New York authorized a short, voluntary prayer for recitation at the start of each school day. The prayer read as follows: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and beg Thy blessings upon us, our teachers, and our country.“ • Question: Does the reading of a nondenominational prayer at the start of the school day violate the “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment?

 

13. West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette (1942) Facts of the Case • The West Virginia Board of Education required that the flag salute be part of the program of activities in all public schools. All teachers and pupils were required to honor the Flag; refusal to salute was treated as “insubordination” and was punishable by expulsion and charges of delinquency. A group of students who were Jehovah’s Witnesses refused to pledge because they did not believe in saluting symbols (against their religion). • Question: Did the compulsory flag-salute for public schoolchildren violate the First Amendment?

14. Lynch v. Donnelly (1983) • Facts of the Case The city of Pawtucket, Rhode Island, annually erected a Christmas display located in the city’s shopping district. The display included such objects as a Santa Claus house, a Christmas tree, a banner reading “Seasons Greetings,” and a nativity scene. The creche had been included in the display for over 40 years. Daniel Donnelly objected to the display and took action against Dennis Lynch, the Mayor of Pawtucket. • Question Did the inclusion of a nativity scene in the city’s display violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment?

15. Town of Greece v. Galloway (2013) • Facts of the Case The town of Greece, New York, is governed by a five-member town board that conducts official business at monthly public meetings. Starting in 1999, the town meetings began with a prayer given by an invited member of the local clergy. The town did not adopt any policy regarding who may lead the prayer or its content, but in practice, Christian clergy members delivered the vast majority of the prayers at the town’s invitation. In 2007, Susan Galloway and Linda Stephens complained about the town’s prayer practices and argued that the town’s practices violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment by preferring Christianity over other faiths. • Question Does the invocation of prayer at a legislative session violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment even in the absence of discrimination in the selection of prayer-givers and content?

16. 1st Amendment – The Freedom of Speech – You have the right to express your opinions and to hear others’ opinions – Words have consequences – NOT everything is free speech!

 

 

 

17. What ISN’T Free Speech? – Slander – saying false and hateful things about someone to hurt their reputation – Libel – writing false and hateful things about someone to hurt their reputation – Seditious speech – threatening or encouraging the overthrow of gov’t by force or violence (action known as sedition)

 

 

18. &#$!@ Obscenity – Is NOT free speech – Something is obscene if: • 1.) encourages an excessive interest in sexual matters • 2.) It offensively depicts sexual material that is censored by law • 3.) It lacks any tasteful artistic, literary, political, or scientific value

 

 

19. Also NOT Free Speech: – Clear and Present Danger – if what you say can cause a dangerous or harmful situation (ex: yelling “FIRE!” in a movie theater) – True Threats – threatening the well-being of someone else – Fighting Words – words you say that cause someone to react violently

 

 

20. – Symbolic speech – the expression of your ideas through your ACTIONS – Ex. Issues: Burning the flag and picketing (going on strike)

 

 

 

21. Texas v. Johnson (1989) Facts of the Case • In 1984, in front of the Dallas City Hall, Gregory Lee Johnson burned an American flag as a means of protest against Reagan administration policies. Johnson was tried and convicted under a Texas law outlawing flag desecration. He was sentenced to one year in jail and assessed a $2,000 fine. After the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the conviction, the case went to the Supreme Court. Question • Is the desecration of an American flag, by burning or otherwise, a form of speech that is protected under the First Amendment?

22. 1st Amendment – Freedom of the Press – Expression of ideas through printed words or images (ex: the media) – (freedom of speech rules still apply) – Prior restraint – the gov’t censoring you before you print or say something (NOT allowed)

 

 

23. Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier (1987) Facts of the Case • The Spectrum, the school-sponsored newspaper of Hazelwood East High School, was written and edited by students. Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. Reynolds found two of the articles in the issue to be inappropriate and ordered that the pages on which the articles appeared be withheld from publication. Cathy Kuhlmeier and two other former Hazelwood East students brought the case to court. Question • Did the principal’s deletion of the articles violate the students’ rights under the First Amendment?

24. Sheppard v. Maxwell (1965) Facts of the Case After suffering a trial court conviction of second-degree murder for the bludgeoning death of his pregnant wife, Samuel Sheppard challenged the verdict as the product of an unfair trial. Sheppard, who maintained his innocence of the crime, alleged that the trial judge failed to protect him from the massive, widespread, and prejudicial publicity that attended his prosecution. Question Did the huge amount of press end up biasing the jury and giving Sheppard an unfair trial?

 

25. Freedom of Assembly and Petition • You have the right to – peaceably gather with others to express your views on public policies – criticize the gov’t and ask them to fix problems (petition) • Assemblies include meetings, demonstrations, protests, etc.

 

 

26. Limits on Assembly • The gov’t can limit where, when, and how you assemble (to keep the peace) – Content neutral – gov’t cannot limit based on the content (subject) of the assembly • You cannot protest on private property (you don’t have the right to trespass)

 

 

27. Freedom of Association • Groups and organizations have the right to associate (interact) with who they wish • Cannot be forced to associate with ideas that go against what they stand for

 

 

 

28. Yates v. United States (1957) • Facts of the Case – Fourteen leaders of the Communist Party in the state of California were tried and convicted under the Smith Act. That Act prohibited willfully and knowingly conspiring to teach and encourage the overthrow of the government by force. The appellants claimed that the Communist Party was engaged in passive political activities and that any violation of the Smith Act must involve active attempts to overthrow the government. – Question: Did the Smith Act violate the First Amendment?

 

29. Boy Scouts of America v. Dale (2000) • Facts of the Case – The Boy Scouts of America revoked former Eagle Scout and assistant scoutmaster James Dale’s adult membership when the organization discovered that Dale was a homosexual and a gay rights activist. In 1992, Dale filed suit against the Boy Scouts, alleging that the Boy Scouts had violated the New Jersey statute prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. The Boy Scouts, a private, not-for-profit organization, asserted that homosexual conduct was inconsistent with the values it was attempting to instill in young people. – Question: Did the application of New Jersey’s nondiscrimination law violate the Boy Scouts’ First Amendment right of association to prohibit homosexuals from serving as troop leaders?

30. Ch. 19 Quiz • Establishment Clause • Lemon Test • Free Exercise Clause • Slander • Sedition • Libel • Prior restraint • Parochial school • Clear and present danger • Symbolic speech

 

 

 

31. Ch. 20 – Rights of the Accused • Due Process – fair treatment according to the law • Found in the 5th and 14th Amendments • Two types: – 1.) substantive due process – what the law is about must be fair (substantive = what it’s made of, its substance) – 2.) procedural due process – how the law is enforced must be fair (procedural = how you do it)

 

 

32. Probable Cause • You have the right against invasion of your privacy without probable cause • probable cause – reasonable suspicion of a crime

 

 

 

33. Search Warrants • Search warrant – a court order that gives police permission to search private property (must have probable cause) You DO NOT need a search warrant if: 1.) the person consents to search 2.) “in plain sight” – evidence is easily seen by the officer and can be taken 3.) if the suspect has been legally arrested 4.) cars stopped on probable cause

 

 

34. The Exclusionary Rule (exclude = leave out) • Evidence that is taken illegally cannot be used against someone in court • When the Exclusionary Rule doesn’t apply: • “inevitable discovery” – the evidence would have been found lawfully anyway • “good faith” – if officials are trying to follow the law but take evidence by mistake

 

 

35. New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1983) • Facts of the Case T.L.O. was a high school student. School officials searched her purse suspecting she had cigarettes. The officials discovered cigarettes, a small amount of marijuana, and a list containing the names of students who owed T.L.O. money. T.L.O. was charged with possession of marijuana. Before trial, T.L.O. moved to suppress evidence discovered in the search, but the Court denied her motion. Question: Does the exclusionary rule apply to searches conducted by school officials in public schools?

 

36. When Accused… • Writ of habeas corpus – you have the right to be told why you’re being arrested – An officer must prove to a court that you should be held for a crime (give a good reason)

 

 

37. Ex Post Facto Laws • (ex-post facto= after the fact) • New laws cannot apply to people operating before the new law was passed

 

 

 

38. 5th Amendment (Due Process) – Serious crimes need a grand jury to indict (bring charges against) – Double jeopardy – you can’t be accused of the same crime twice – Self-incrimination – you can’t be forced to testify against yourself –> “right to remain silent” (also must be read your rights)

 

 

39. 6th Amendment – You have the right to: • a speedy and public trial by an impartial (unbiased) jury • Face the people accusing you • Get witnesses to testify in support of you • A lawyer to guide/counsel you through the trial

 

 

 

40. The Jury – Jury duty is a citizen’s responsibility – Jurors are randomly selected from the area where the crime took place – 12 people on a jury – Their decision on a case must be unanimous (all of them agree) – If they are not 100% sure of guilt (reasonable doubt) they must give a verdict of “not guilty” – If a jury can’t decide, it’s called a hung jury

 

 

41. 8th Amendment – Protects against cruel and unusual punishment and excessive bail and fines – Bail – money the accused must pay as a promise to come back to court • Can be held without bail in some cases • Cannot be excessive (too much $) – Capital punishment – the death penalty

 

 

 

Share This:

3 Comments:

  1. Hey, what do you feel about Arvind Pandit Kansas? Pretty awesome subject, right?

  2. obviously like your website however you have to test the spelling on quite a few of your posts. A number of them are rife with spelling problems and I find it very bothersome to inform the truth on the other hand I’ll certainly come back again.

  3. It’s hard to locate knowledgeable folks on this subject, but you sound like you understand what you are talking about! Thanks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *