{"id":100,"date":"2025-07-09T15:35:06","date_gmt":"2025-07-09T15:35:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/staging.routledgelearning.com\/americangovernment\/?p=100"},"modified":"2025-08-14T20:17:00","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T20:17:00","slug":"chapter-13","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/staging.routledgelearning.com\/americangovernment\/chapter-13\/","title":{"rendered":"Chapter 13"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Civil Liberties: Ordered Liberty in America<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n

In this chapter, we examined the role that our fundamental liberties play within the polity. Civil liberties protect us from government intrusions into our individual lives with guarantees as listed in the Bill of Rights, such as the First Amendment\u2019s freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition. A series of court cases in the twentieth century slowly incorporated these liberties, which expanded and refined the definitions of these fundamental freedoms, forever changing their application.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For example, broad interpretations of free speech (e.g., Gitlow v. New York<\/em> (1925)), rights to privacy (e.g., Roe v. Wade<\/em> (1973)), and very limited restrictions placed on prior restraint of the press (e.g., Near v. Minnesota<\/em> (1931)) became the norm in court interpretations by the 1970s. Then, a conservative counter-reaction occurred within the elected and appointed offices of the national government leading to the advance of restrictions on civil liberties as it became clear that \u201cnot all speech was protected\u201d (e.g., Virginia v. Black<\/em> (2003)) and the right of privacy as interpreted in the Roe v. Wade<\/em> (1973) decision was subject to restriction as far as access to abortion procedures were concerned. Furthermore, the rights of the accused, perhaps most especially articulated in the Mapp v. Ohio<\/em> (1961) and Miranda v. Arizona <\/em>(1966) rulings, have been restricted as searches and seizures have been expanded as well as the admissibility of evidence acquired in unconventional ways (e.g., Hudson v. Michigan<\/em> (2006) and Herring v. U.S. <\/em>(2009)).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The chapter also delved into the murky waters of recent and ongoing developments regarding privacy issues, national security, and criminality emanating out of decisions made by the Bush administration in the wake of 9\/11. These are mostly encapsulated in the debate over the U.S.A. Patriot Act, which has been heightened with the release of secret documents showing the wide latitude of domestic and international surveillance by the National Security Agency (NSA) but not sanctioned by Congress. Other larger issues of criminality are treated in a comparative discussion on the employment of the death penalty. This case study reveals that the U.S. is somewhat unique in its liberal application of this means of punishment within our society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In a related issue, the proper application of the First Amendment\u2019s establishment clause has been hotly debated (e.g., Lemon v. Kurtzman<\/em> (1971)) among Supreme Court justices as they attempt to identify the constitutional limits of prayer in public schools by proposing an endorsement test and a coercion test to refine the Lemon test.  And the First Amendment\u2019s free exercise clause has also been continually revisited as it pertains to various public policy mandates (e.g., Burwell v. Hobby Lobby<\/em> (2014)). <\/p>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n

\n

Quizzes<\/h3>\n\n\n\n