DOCSLIB.ORG

Lesson 6.2: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties & Selective Incorporation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Lesson 6.2: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties & Selective Incorporation Lesson 6.2: Civil Rights/Civil Liberties & Selective Incorporation AP U. S. Government Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties "Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties” • What’s the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties“? • “Civil rights" - the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. • "Civil liberties" - basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. "Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties” Civil liberties include: • Freedom of speech • The right to privacy • The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home • The right to a fair court trial • The right to marry • The right to vote "Civil Rights" vs. "Civil Liberties” • One way to consider the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties" is to look at 1. what right is affected • 2. whose right is affected. • For example, as an employee, you do not have the legal right to a promotion, mainly because getting a promotion is not a guaranteed "civil liberty." • But, as a female employee you do have the legal right to be free from discrimination in being considered for that promotion -- you cannot legally be denied the promotion based on your gender (or race, or disability, etc.). • By choosing not to promote a female worker solely because of the employee's gender, the employer has committed a civil rights violation and has engaged in unlawful employment discrimination based on sex or gender. Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties CIVIL RIGHTS CIVIL LIBERTIES are describe protections of government’s citizens from unwarranted responsibility to government action. protect citizens. The Bill of Rights’ emphasis on limiting the powers of the national government makes it arguably more a “bill of liberties.” Civil Liberties - Freedom vs. Order • How to balance the competing interests of the people and the government • Civil liberties conflicts usually involve: • An individual (or group of individuals) seeking to exercise certain freedoms • And • The government seeking to keep order and preserve the rights of others • OR • Two competing liberties Civil Rights - Freedom vs. Equality • Are private businesses free to hire and promote whomever they want? • Are universities free to admit whomever they want? • How do we balance the competing need for freedom with the need for equality? The Roots of Civil Liberties • Federalist vs. Anti-federalist debate • How strong should the federal government be? • Is there a need to specifically limit the powers of the federal government? • Most Framers originally opposed the Bill of Rights on the grounds that it was superfluous because the Constitution enumerated what the US government could and could not do and states had their own Bills of Right • Bill of Rights compromise • Anti-federalists would only ratify the Constitution if a Bill of Rights was added • James Madison primary author of Bill of Rights US Bill of Rights • I – Speech, press, assembly, • VI – defendant’s rights petition, religion • VII – Right to a jury trial in • II – Bear arms civil cases • III – Quartering of troops • VIII – No excessive bail, no • IV – Search and Seizures cruel or unusual punishment • V – Due process and rights of • IX – List of specific rights is not the accused exclusive • X – Reserved powers clause AMENDMENT V *INDICTMENT BY A GRAND JURY…enough evidence to be charged. *DOUBLE JEOPARDY…can’t be tried twice for a crime. *SELF-INCRIMINATION…can’t be forced to testify against yourself “taking the 5th”. *DUE PROCESS…government must go through the proper steps. AMENDMENT VI *GUARANTEED A FAIR, FAST, & PUBLIC TRIAL *RIGHT TO BE PRESENT IN COURT *RIGHT TO HAVE A LAWYER AMENDMENT VII RIGHT TO A TRIAL BY JURY IN CIVIL CASES + $20* *Changed by Congress to be $75,000 AMENDMENT VIII *PROTECTION AGAINST EXCESSIVE BAIL $ $ $ $ $ $ $ *PROTECTION AGAINST CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT Bill of Rights – Original Interpretation • The Bill of Rights, when ratified in 1791, applied only to the powers of the national government and did not apply to the states. • The first five words of the First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law…” • Barron vs. Baltimore (1833) • Supreme Court ruled that Bill of Rights applied only to US government • The Court’s decision in Barron vs. Baltimore remained unchallenged until after the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution in 1868 A Double Standard • Until the Bill of Rights was incorporated to apply to the states, the United States had two drastically different systems of criminal justice • Federal prosecutors were required to use search warrants, the exclusionary rule, and trial by jury, but state prosecutors were not required to do so • The Supreme Court eventually extended most criminal procedure rights to the states to avoid giving state law enforcement officials incentive to violate the U.S. Constitution Selective Incorporation Applying the Bill of Rights to State and Local Government Selective Incorporation So how did we come to Selective Incorporation? Did the word “liberty” in the due process clause mean the entire Bill of Rights was to be used...Total Incorporation. Total Incorporation does have some difficulties. Ex: meant imposing on state court systems the requirement to have a trial by jury in civil suits where the amount exceeds $20? Plus, what about the 10th Amendment...powers not delegated to the US by the Constitution, nor prohibited by the States, are reserved for the States respectively, or to the people • This is how we have come to SELECTIVE INCORPORATION – case by case basis. Selective Incorporation • On a case-by-case basis, the Supreme Court began recognizing a role for the national government to protect citizens from state governments. • Selective incorporation defined: the process by which different protections in the Bill of rights were incorporated into the 14th Amendment, thus guaranteeing citizens’ protection from state as well as national governments 14th Amendment - 1868 Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the U.S. and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the U.S. and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of the law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection on the laws. Three Clauses: 1. Privilege and Immunities Clause 2. Due Process Clause* 3. Equal Protection Clause* *significantly impacted future SC decisions Incorporation • When the Supreme Court uses the Fourteenth Amendment’s Privileges and Immunities Clause or Due Process Clause or Equal Protection Clause to rule that a state law or policy has violated a Bill of Rights protection, it is said to have “incorporated” that protection. Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Benjamin Gitlow wrote a pamphlet entitled “The Revolutionary Age” urging industrial workers to strike and join a revolution to overthrow organized government. • Gitlow was arrested and convicted for violating a New York state law that made it a crime to advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence • Gitlow argued that the New York law violated his right to freedom of speech and of the press Gitlow v. New York (1925) • Does the First Amendment apply to the states? • Yes, by virtue of the liberty protected by due process that no state shall deny (14th Amendment) • The Supreme Court voted to uphold Gitlow’s conviction, but ruled that “freedom of speech and of the press…are among the fundamental and personal rights and liberties protected by the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment” Selective Incorporation • The ratification of the 14th Amendment created a formal framework for extending certain aspects of the Bill of Rights to apply to the states • The incorporation doctrine becomes the justification for using the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to states • Gitlow vs. New York was the first incorporation case • Selective incorporation - The Supreme Court decides, on a case-by-case basis, which provisions of the Bill of Rights it wishes to apply to the states. Selective Incorporation Important understandings • Incorporation did not happen all at once • It happened one provision and one clause of the Bill of Rights at a time • Several of the amendments have NOT been incorporated Table 5.1 The Selective Incorporation of the Bill of Rights P. 157 Amendment Right Date Case Incorporated I Speech 1925 Gitlow v. New York Press 1931 Near v. Minnesota Assembly 1937 DeJonge v. Oregon Religion 1940 Cantwell v. Connecticut II Bear arms 2008 DC v. Heller III Quartering of troops NOT INCORPORATED IV No reasonable search or 1949 Wolf v. Colorado seizure Exclusionary rule 1961 Mapp v. Ohio V Just compensation 1897 Chicago, B&Q RR Co. v. Chicago Self-incrimination 1964 Malloy v. Hogan Double jeopardy 1969 Benton v. Maryland* Grand jury indictment NOT INCORPORATED† * Overruled Palko v. Connecticut; †Trend in state criminal cases is away from grand juries juries In Conclusion Selective incorporation has profoundly altered American federalism. Before the process started, the federal courts had little to say about the day-to-day operation of state and local gov’ts. With the incorporation of the freedom of speech and the press came federal guidelines for states and localities concerning expression and its type. The federal gov’t tells states what sort of anti-obscenity and anti- pornography laws they may pass and enforce, and what sort of marches, parades and rallies they must allow in public places. Whether the Chicago suburb of Skokie must allow Nazis to march through its Jewish neighborhoods- or a city in Florida may prevent the sale of albums by 2 Live Crew are now questions involving the SC’s interpretation to the First Amendment In Conclusion • The incorporation of the 4th, 5th, and 6th Amendments has changed the way state and local authorities enforce criminal law.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives
    The New Frontiers of Personality Rights and the Problem of Commodification: European and Comparative Perspectives Giorgio Resta* I. TORT LAW AND THE TRADITIONAL APPROACH TO PERSONALITY RIGHTS ........................................................................ 33 II. NEW DIMENSIONS OF PERSONALITY PROTECTION IN PRIVATE LAW .................................................................................................... 37 A. From ‘Reactive’ to ‘Preventive’ Strategies ........................ 38 B. The Emergence of the Human Body as a Legal Object ................................................................................. 40 C. The Commercialization of Personality ............................... 41 III. WHO OWNS IDENTITY? ...................................................................... 43 IV. THE QUESTIONS AT STAKE ................................................................. 46 V. THE PROTECTION OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY: A MATTER OF PRIVACY OR PROPERTY? .................................................................... 48 A. Incorporeal Attributes and the Dominance of Property Rules .................................................................... 48 B. Body Parts and Liability Rules ........................................... 51 VI. LICENSING IDENTITY? ........................................................................ 54 A. The Human Body and the Gift Paradigm ........................... 54 B. Commercial Exploitation of Personality and the Limits of Freedom of Contract ..........................................
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: the Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Villanova University School of Law: Digital Repository Volume 27 Issue 5 Article 7 1982 Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: The Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles James McClellan Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Courts Commons Recommended Citation James McClellan, Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect the Reserved Powers of the States: The Helms Prayer Bill and a Return to First Principles, 27 Vill. L. Rev. 1019 (1982). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol27/iss5/7 This Symposia is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. McClellan: Congressional Retraction of Federal Court Jurisdiction to Protect 1981-82] CONGRESSIONAL RETRACTION OF FEDERAL COURT JURISDICTION TO PROTECT THE RESERVED POWERS OF THE STATES: THE HELMS PRAYER BILL AND A RETURN TO FIRST PRINCIPLES JAMES MCCLELLAN t S INCE THE EARLIEST DAYS OF THE WARREN COURT, countless bills have been introduced in Congress which would deny the federal courts jurisdiction over a great variety of subjects ranging from busing to abortion.' The exceptions clause of article III of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to enact such bills. 2 While none of these proposed bills has been enacted into law, it is noteworthy that two have passed at least one house of Congress, and that both of these have sought to deny all federal courts, including the Supreme Court, jurisdiction over certain cases arising under the fourteenth amendment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative
    Pace Law Review Volume 8 Issue 1 Winter 1988 Article 2 January 1988 The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative A. Kathleen Tomlinson Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr Recommended Citation A. Kathleen Tomlinson, The Right of the Elderly to Self-Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative, 8 Pace L. Rev. 63 (1988) Available at: https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/plr/vol8/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the School of Law at DigitalCommons@Pace. It has been accepted for inclusion in Pace Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@Pace. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right of the Elderly to Self- Determination and New York's Legislative Imperative A. Kathleen Tomlinsont I. Introduction In an era when the average life expectancy and the normal period of physical vitality have increased dramatically,' the law has become a more important influence during the aging of the individual human being. Improvements in technology and public health, as well as shifting demographic trends, have raised en- tirely new sets of questions for society to confront and resolve. For the first time in our history, large numbers of older persons are still alive, active, and vigorous - they have survived the task of raising the next generation and they are beyond the daily demands of making a living.2 By the year 2000, 13% of Americans will be aged sixty-five and over.3 The full impact of the population increase among the elderly is expected to be felt keenly between the years 2010 and 2030 when the post-World War II baby boom population begins to retire.
    [Show full text]
  • Three Federalisms Randy E
    Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2007 Three Federalisms Randy E. Barnett Georgetown University Law Center, [email protected] This paper can be downloaded free of charge from: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers/23 This open-access article is brought to you by the Georgetown Law Library. Posted with permission of the author. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/fwps_papers THREE FEDERALISMS RANDY E. BARNETT* ABSTRACT: Debates over the importance of “federalism” are often obscured by the fact that there are not one, but three distinct versions of constitutional federalism that have arisen since the Founding: Enumerated Powers Federalism in the Founding era, Fundamental Rights Federalism in the Reconstruction era, and Affirmative State Sovereignty Federalism in the post-New Deal era. In this very short essay, my objective is to reduce confusion about federalism by defining and identifying the origin of each of these different conceptions of federalism. I also suggest that, while Fundamental Rights Federalism significantly qualified Enumerated Powers Federalism, it was not until the New Deal’s expansion of federal power that Enumerated Powers Federalism was eviscerated altogether. To preserve some semblance of state discretionary power in the post-New Deal era, the Rehnquist Court developed an ahistorical Affirmative State Sovereignty Federalism that was both under- and over-inclusive of the role of federalism that is warranted by the original meaning of the Constitution as amended. In my remarks this morning, I want to explain how there are, not one, but three distinct versions of federalism that have developed since the Founding.
    [Show full text]
  • History SS Federalism Today Complex Project
    Item Name: Federalism Today Item Type: Complex Project Subject and/or U.S. Government/Civics, Grade 11-12 Course: CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.1 Cite specific textual evidence to support analysis of primary and secondary sources… CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RH.11-12.9 Compare and contrast treatments of the same topic in several primary and secondary sources… Common Core CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.1 Write arguments focused on discipline-specific content…. Standards: CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.7 Conduct short as well as more sustained research projects to answer a question… CCSS.ELA-Literacy.WHST.11-12.8 Gather relevant information from multiple authoritative print and digital sources… Published by Summit Public Schools (some modifications Developer/Source: made.) Administration: Curriculum-embedded Length of time for response: Multiple weeks Item Features: Method of scoring: Analytic Rubric Opportunity for student collaboration: Once a week Opportunity for teacher feedback and revision: Daily Collection of performance assessment items compiled by Overview This learning module will prepare you to write an argument over which level of government, federal or state, should have the authority and power when making and executing laws on controversial issues. You will research an issue of your choice, write an argument in support of your position, and then present it to a panel of judges. Standards AP Standards: APS.SOC.9-12.I Constitutional Underpinnings of United States Government APS.SOC.9-12.I.D - Federalism Objective: Understand the implication(s)
    [Show full text]
  • The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon
    Santa Clara Journal of International Law Volume 11 | Issue 2 Article 4 8-5-2013 The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil Recommended Citation Solon Solomon, The Quest for Self-Determination: Defining International Law's Inherent Interstate Limits, 11 Santa Clara J. Int'l L. 397 (2013). Available at: http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/scujil/vol11/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Santa Clara Journal of International Law by an authorized administrator of Santa Clara Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Quest for Self-Determination The Quest for Self- Determination: Defining International Law’s Inherent Interstate Limits Solon Solomon* * Former Member of the Knesset (Israeli Parliament) Legal Department in charge of international and constitutional issues. 397 11 SANTA CLARA JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 397 (2013) TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction........................................................................... 398 II. Inherent Self-Determination Limits ................................ 399 A. The International Community and Libya ................................................ 401 B. The International Community and Syria ................................................. 404 C. Assessing Self-Determination’s Limits .....................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Federalism in the Constitution
    Federalism in the Constitution As you read each paragraph, answer the questions in the margin. The United States is one country—but it’s also a bunch of states. You When creating the Constitution, what could almost say it’s a group of states that are, well, united. When we things did we need our central created the Articles of Confederation, each state already had its own government to be able to do? government and court system, so the new Americans weren’t exactly running amok. But if the new United States was going to be able to deal with other nations, it needed one government that would speak for the entire country. It also needed one central government to do things like declare war on other countries, keep a military, and negotiate treaties with other countries. There also needed to be federal courts where citizens from different states could resolve their disputes. So, the Founders created the Constitution to do those things. Define federalism. The United States Constitution created a central government known as the federal government. The federal government deals with issues that affect the entire country. Each state also has its own state government that only handles the affairs of that state. This division of power between a central government and state governments is called federalism. The federal government gets all of its power from the Create a Venn Diagram, with labels, that shows Constitution. These federal powers are listed in the the relationship between the federal powers, Constitution. In order to keep the federal government from reserve powers, and concurrent powers.
    [Show full text]
  • Self-Determination Program Service Definitions
    Self-Determination Program Service Definitions Acupuncture Services Acupuncture services are covered to prevent, modify, or alleviate the perception of severe, persistent chronic pain resulting from a generally recognized medical condition. Acupuncture is defined in the Business and Professions Code, Section 4927 as “the stimulation of a certain point or points on or near the surface of the body by the insertion of needles to prevent or modify the perception of pain or to normalize physiological functions, including pain control, for the treatment of certain diseases or dysfunctions of the body and includes the techniques of electroacupuncture, cupping, and moxibustion.” Acupuncture services (with or without electric stimulation of the needles) are limited to two services in any one calendar month, although additional services can be provided based upon medical necessity. All acupuncture services for children under age 21 are covered in the state plan pursuant to the EPSDT benefit. Acupuncture services in this waiver are only provided to individuals age 21 and over and only when the limits of services furnished under the approved state plan are exhausted. Behavioral Intervention Services Behavior intervention services include the use and development of intensive behavioral intervention programs to improve the participant’s development and behavior tracking and analysis. The intervention programs are restricted to generally accepted, evidence-based, positive approaches. Depending on the participant’s needs, behavioral intervention services may be provided in multiple settings, including the participant’s home, workplace, etc. Behavioral intervention services are designed to assist individuals in acquiring, retaining and improving the self-help, socialization and adaptive skills necessary to reside successfully in home and community-based settings.
    [Show full text]
  • Constitutional Uncertainties from Presidential Tax Return Release Laws
    Releasing the 1040, Not so EZ: Constitutional Uncertainties from Presidential Tax Return Release Laws# Matthew M. Ryan* Introduction ............................................................................................ 209 I. U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton ..................................................... 211 II. What is a Qualification? ..................................................................... 212 A. Targeting a Class of Candidates .......................................... 212 B. Impermissibly Barring or Hindering Candidacy .................. 213 III. The Protection of Informational Privacy .......................................... 213 IV. Anti-Corruption Interest: Emoluments Clauses ................................ 216 V. State Power in Presidential Elections ................................................. 217 VI. Slippery Slope .................................................................................. 220 INTRODUCTION On multiple fronts, Americans are pursuing President Trump’s tax returns: a senator through legislation, a district attorney and congressional committees through investigation, and voters through protest and persuasion.1 None have succeeded. DOI: https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38KK94C89. Copyright © 2020 Matthew M. Ryan. # An extended version of this Article can be found in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly. See Matthew M. Ryan, Releasing the 1040, Not so EZ: Constitutional Ambiguities Raised by State Laws Mandating Tax Return Release for Presidential Candidates, 47 HASTINGS CONST.
    [Show full text]
  • The Bill of Rights As a Code of Criminal Proceduret Henry J
    California Law Review VOL. 53 OCTOBER 1965 No. 4 The Bill of Rights as a Code of Criminal Proceduret Henry J. Friendly* A "GREAT DEBATE" on criminal procedure is currently in process. Judges, prosecutors, the police, defense lawyers, law teachers, prac- titioners in other fields; and laymen-both informed and uninformed -are taking part. The debate has been so focused that it can result in constructive achievement of the highest order. The American Bar Asso- ciation has undertaken a large-scale program to promulgate minimum standards in the entire field of criminal justice.' The American Law Institute's Model Code of Pre-Arraignment Procedure has advanced to the stage where it is expected that a tentatve draft, at least of the most vital parts, can be published early in 1966.2 Such model codes for the nation and the fifty states-providing, it is to be hoped, a choice of solu- tions of certain difficult issues-will strike a fair balance between society's need for protection against crime and the interests of suspected and accused persons, a balance based on thorough investigation of facts and consideration of the views of all parts of the spectrum. Granted that such codes would not be enacted immediately or universally, and ought not to be enacted uniformly, they would nevertheless set workable standards for the police and afford useful guidelines for judges.' They are indeed a splendid prospect, although one that is long overdue. t This article comprises the text of the 1965 Morrison Lecture given to the State Bar of California on September 23, 1965.
    [Show full text]
  • Factors Determining the Success of Congressional Efforts to Reverse Supreme Court Interpretations of the Constitution
    William & Mary Law Review Volume 33 (1991-1992) Issue 2 Article 6 February 1992 Looking Down From the Hill: Factors Determining the Success of Congressional Efforts to Reverse Supreme Court Interpretations of the Constitution Mark E. Herrmann Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr Part of the Constitutional Law Commons, and the Juvenile Law Commons Repository Citation Mark E. Herrmann, Looking Down From the Hill: Factors Determining the Success of Congressional Efforts to Reverse Supreme Court Interpretations of the Constitution, 33 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 543 (1992), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr/vol33/iss2/6 Copyright c 1992 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmlr LOOKING DOWN FROM THE HILL: FACTORS DETERMINING THE SUCCESS OF CONGRESSIONAL EFFORTS TO REVERSE SUPREME COURT INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION That there ought to be one court of supreme and final juris- diction, is a proposition which is not likely to be contested.... A legislature, without exceeding its province, cannot reverse a determination once made in a particular case; though it may prescribe a new rule for future cases.' Throughout the 200-year history of the United States Consti- tution, frequent debate has arisen over the proper roles of the three branches of the federal government in interpreting the Constitution. The Supreme Court has, in recent years, expressed the view that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law under the Constitution. 2 Under this view, once the Supreme Court has spoken regarding a constitutional issue, only the Court itself can alter that interpretation of the Constitution.
    [Show full text]
  • Right of Privacy and Rights of the Personality
    AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Gomparativae VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY Working paper prepared for the Nordic Conferen.ee on privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm M ay 1967 BY STIG STRÜMHOLM STOCKHOLM P. A. NORSTEDT & SÜNERS FÜRLAG ACTA Institut! Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Oomparativae AGTA Instituti Upsaliensis Iurisprudentiae Comjmrativae Edidit ÂKE MALMSTROM VIII RIGHT OF PRIVACY AND RIGHTS OF THE PERSONALITY A COMPARATIVE SURVEY (Working Paper prepared for the Nordic Conférence on Privacy organized by the International Commission of Jurists, Stockholm May 1967) By STIG STRÜMHOLM S T O C K H O L M P. A. N O RSTEDT & S ONE R S FÜRLAG © P. A. Norstedt & Sôners fôrlag 1967 Boktryckeri AB Thule, Stockholm 1967 PREFACE One of the author’s most eminent teachers in private law in the Uppsala Faculty of Law once claimed that an action in tort ought to lie against those légal writers who take up a subject to treat it broadly enough to deter others from writing about it but not deeply enough to give any final answers to the questions discussed. Were the law so severe, the present author would undoubtedly have to face a lawsuit for venturing to publish this short study on a topic which demands lengthy and careful considération on almost every point and which has already given rise to an extensive body of case law and of légal writing. This préfacé can be considered as the au­ thor’s plaidoyer in that action, fortunately imaginary. The present study was prepared at the request, and with the most active personal and material support, of the International Commis­ sion of Jurists as a working paper for the Nordic Conférence of Jurists, organized by the Commission in Stockholm in May, 1967.
    [Show full text]