{"id":95,"date":"2017-08-08T16:29:23","date_gmt":"2017-08-08T16:29:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/openstax-americangovernment\/chapter\/what-are-civil-liberties\/"},"modified":"2018-12-13T17:54:41","modified_gmt":"2018-12-13T17:54:41","slug":"what-are-civil-liberties","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/chapter\/what-are-civil-liberties\/","title":{"raw":"What Are Civil Liberties?","rendered":"What Are Civil Liberties?"},"content":{"raw":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\r\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757302522\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163757474539\">\r\n \t<li>Define civil liberties and civil rights<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Describe the origin of civil liberties in the U.S. context<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Identify the key positions on civil liberties taken at the Constitutional Convention<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Explain the Civil War origin of concern that the states should respect civil liberties<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758503353\">The <a class=\"target-chapter\" href=\"\/contents\/e752e52a-f95b-4e60-8c26-d6d93503b060\">U.S. Constitution<\/a>\u2014in particular, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights\u2014protects the freedoms and rights of individuals. It does not limit this protection just to citizens or adults; instead, in most cases, the Constitution simply refers to \u201cpersons,\u201d which over time has grown to mean that even children, visitors from other countries, and immigrants\u2014permanent or temporary, legal or undocumented\u2014enjoy the same freedoms when they are in the United States or its territories as adult citizens do. So, whether you are a Japanese tourist visiting Disney World or someone who has stayed beyond the limit of days allowed on your visa, you do not sacrifice your liberties. In everyday conversation, we tend to treat freedoms, liberties, and rights as being effectively the same thing\u2014similar to how separation of powers and checks and balances are often used as if they are interchangeable, when in fact they are distinct concepts.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758521306\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h2>DEFINING CIVIL LIBERTIES<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758498706\">To be more precise in their language, political scientists and legal experts make a distinction between civil liberties and civil rights, even though the Constitution has been interpreted to protect both. We typically envision <span>civil liberties<\/span> as being limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms that governments may not legally intrude on. For example, the First Amendment denies the government the power to prohibit \u201cthe free exercise\u201d of religion; the states and the national government cannot forbid people to follow a religion of their choice, even if politicians and judges think the religion is misguided, blasphemous, or otherwise inappropriate. You are free to create your own religion and recruit followers to it (subject to the U.S. Supreme Court deeming it a religion), even if both society and government disapprove of its tenets. That said, the way you practice your religion may be regulated if it impinges on the rights of others. Similarly, the Eighth Amendment says the government cannot impose \u201ccruel and unusual punishments\u201d on individuals for their criminal acts. Although the definitions of <em>cruel<\/em> and <em>unusual<\/em> have expanded over the years, as we will see later in this chapter, the courts have generally and consistently interpreted this provision as making it unconstitutional for government officials to torture suspects.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758504770\"><span>Civil rights<\/span>, on the other hand, are guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and that decisions will be made on the basis of merit rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics. Because of the Constitution\u2019s civil rights guarantee, it is unlawful for a school or university run by a state government to treat students differently based on their race, ethnicity, age, sex, or national origin. In the 1960s and 1970s, many states had separate schools where only students of a certain race or gender were able to study. However, the courts decided that these policies violated the civil rights of students who could not be admitted because of those rules.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Green v. County School Board of New Kent County<\/em>, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); <em>Allen v. Wright<\/em>, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758390125\">The idea that Americans\u2014indeed, people in general\u2014have fundamental rights and liberties was at the core of the arguments in favor of their independence. In writing the <a class=\"target-chapter\" href=\"\/contents\/634b2a40-8f9d-4eca-b8b4-9f8df33f556b\">Declaration of Independence<\/a> in 1776, Thomas <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jefferson<\/span> drew on the ideas of John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Locke<\/span> to express the colonists\u2019 belief that they had certain inalienable or natural rights that no ruler had the power or authority to deny to his or her subjects. It was a scathing legal indictment of King George III for violating the colonists\u2019 liberties. Although the Declaration of Independence does not guarantee specific freedoms, its language was instrumental in inspiring many of the states to adopt protections for civil liberties and rights in their own constitutions, and in expressing principles of the founding era that have resonated in the United States since its independence. In particular, Jefferson\u2019s words \u201call men are created equal\u201d became the centerpiece of struggles for the rights of women and minorities.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_04_01_Equal\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"525\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162912\/OSC_AmGov_04_01_Equal.jpg\" alt=\"A photo of three civil rights activists, from left to right, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, and Charlton Heston.\" width=\"525\" height=\"527\" \/> Actors and civil rights activists Sidney Poitier (left), Harry Belafonte (center), and Charlton Heston (right) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758469962\" class=\"note american government link-to-learning\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Founded in 1920, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.openstaxcollege.org\/l\/29aclu\">American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)<\/a> is one of the oldest interest groups in the United States. The mission of this non-partisan, not-for-profit organization is \u201cto defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.\u201d Many of the Supreme Court cases in this chapter were litigated by, or with the support of, the ACLU. The ACLU offers a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.openstaxcollege.org\/l\/29acluaffiliate\">listing of state and local chapters<\/a> on their website.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758556885\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h2>CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION<\/h2>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758529444\">The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Constitution<\/span> as written in 1787 did not include a <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bill of Rights<\/span>, although the idea of including one was proposed and, after brief discussion, dismissed in the final week of the Constitutional Convention. The framers of the Constitution believed they faced much more pressing concerns than the protection of civil rights and liberties, most notably keeping the fragile union together in the light of internal unrest and external threats.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758654283\">Moreover, the framers thought that they had adequately covered rights issues in the main body of the document. Indeed, the Federalists did include in the Constitution some protections against legislative acts that might restrict the liberties of citizens, based on the history of real and perceived abuses by both British kings and parliaments as well as royal governors. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 9, the Constitution limits the power of Congress in three ways: prohibiting the passage of bills of attainder, prohibiting ex post facto laws, and limiting the ability of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758666231\">A <span class=\"no-emphasis\">bill of attainder<\/span> is a law that convicts or punishes someone for a crime without a trial, a tactic used fairly frequently in England against the king\u2019s enemies. Prohibition of such laws means that the U.S. Congress cannot simply punish people who are unpopular or seem to be guilty of crimes. An <span class=\"no-emphasis\">ex post facto law<\/span> has a retroactive effect: it can be used to punish crimes that were not crimes at the time they were committed, or it can be used to increase the severity of punishment after the fact.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758327308\">Finally, the writ of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">habeas corpus<\/span> is used in our common-law legal system to demand that a neutral judge decide whether someone has been lawfully detained. Particularly in times of war, or even in response to threats against national security, the government has held suspected enemy agents without access to civilian courts, often without access to lawyers or a defense, seeking instead to try them before military tribunals or detain them indefinitely without trial. For example, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln detained suspected Confederate saboteurs and sympathizers in Union-controlled states and attempted to have them tried in <span class=\"no-emphasis\">military court<\/span>s, leading the Supreme Court to rule in <em>Ex parte Milligan<\/em> that the government could not bypass the civilian court system in states where it was operating.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Ex parte Milligan<\/em>, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758580326\">During World War II, the Roosevelt administration interned Japanese Americans and had other suspected enemy agents\u2014including U.S. citizens\u2014tried by military courts rather than by the civilian justice system, a choice the Supreme Court upheld in <em>Ex parte Quirin<\/em>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Ex parte Quirin<\/em>, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); See William H. Rehnquist. 1998. <em>All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime<\/em>. New York: William Morrow.<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nMore recently, in the wake of the 9\/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush and Obama administrations detained suspected terrorists captured both within and outside the United States and sought, with mixed results, to avoid trials in civilian courts. Hence, there have been times in our history when national security issues trumped individual liberties.\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_04_01_NazisWWII\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"525\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162915\/OSC_AmGov_04_01_NazisWWII.jpg\" alt=\"A photo of a group of people in a military commission, seated in chairs around a number of tables arranged in a U shape.\" width=\"525\" height=\"396\" \/> Richard Quirin and seven other trained German saboteurs had once lived in the United States and had secretly returned in June 1942. Upon their capture, a military commission (shown here) convicted the men\u2014six of them received death sentences. Ex parte Quirin set a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States. (credit: Library of Congress)[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163756085955\">Debate has always swirled over these issues. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Federalists<\/span> reasoned that the limited set of enumerated powers of Congress, along with the limitations on those powers in <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 9, would suffice, and no separate bill of rights was needed. Alexander <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Hamilton<\/span>, writing as Publius in <em>Federalist<\/em> No. 84, argued that the Constitution was \u201cmerely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,\u201d rather than to concern itself with \u201cthe regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.\u201d Hamilton went on to argue that listing some rights might actually be dangerous, because it would provide a pretext for people to claim that rights <em>not<\/em> included in such a list were not protected. Later, James <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Madison<\/span>, in his speech introducing the proposed amendments that would become the Bill of Rights, acknowledged another Federalist argument: \u201cIt has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond, \u201cMadison Speech Proposing the Bill of Rights June 8 1789,\u201d http:\/\/www.let.rug.nl\/usa\/documents\/1786-1800\/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php (March 4, 2016).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nFor that matter, the Articles of Confederation had not included a specific listing of rights either.\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758378331\">However, the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Anti-Federalists<\/span> argued that the Federalists\u2019 position was incorrect and perhaps even insincere. The Anti-Federalists believed provisions such as the elastic clause in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution would allow Congress to legislate on matters well beyond the limited ones foreseen by the Constitution\u2019s authors; thus, they held that a bill of rights was necessary. One of the Anti-Federalists, <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Brutus<\/span>, whom most scholars believe to be Robert <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Yates<\/span>, wrote: \u201cThe powers, rights, and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any state government\u2014It reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness\u2014Life, liberty, and property, are under its controul [sic]. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the state governments.\u201d<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Constitution Society, \u201cTo the Citizens of the State of New-York,\u201d http:\/\/www.constitution.org\/afp\/brutus02.htm (March 4, 2016).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nThe experience of the past two centuries has suggested that the Anti-Federalists may have been correct in this regard; while the states retain a great deal of importance, the scope and powers of the national government are much broader today than in 1787\u2014likely beyond even the imaginings of the Federalists themselves.\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758363645\">The struggle to have rights clearly delineated and the decision of the framers to omit a bill of rights nearly derailed the ratification process. While some of the states were willing to ratify without any further guarantees, in some of the larger states\u2014New York and Virginia in particular\u2014the Constitution\u2019s lack of specified rights became a serious point of contention. The Constitution could go into effect with the support of only nine states, but the Federalists knew it could not be effective without the participation of the largest states. To secure majorities in favor of ratification in New York and Virginia, as well as Massachusetts, they agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to the Constitution.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758461416\">Ultimately, James Madison delivered on this promise by proposing a package of amendments in the First Congress, drawing from the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia state constitution, suggestions from the ratification conventions, and other sources, which were extensively debated in both houses of Congress and ultimately proposed as twelve separate amendments for ratification by the states. Ten of the amendments were successfully ratified by the requisite 75 percent of the states and became known as the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bill of Rights<\/span>.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<table id=\"fs-id1163758489712\" summary=\"This table has two columns and ten rows. The first column lists the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and has the following values: \u201cFirst Amendment\u201d, \u201cSecond Amendment\u201d, \u201cThird Amendment\u201d, \u201cFourth Amendment\u201d, \u201cFifth Amendment\u201d, \u201cSixth Amendment\u201d, \u201cSeventh Amendment\u201d, Eight Amendment\u201d, \u201cNinth Amendment\u201d, and \u201cTenth Amendment\u201d. The second column lists the rights covered in each Amendment, and has the following values: \u201cRight to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances\u201d, \u201cRight to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia\u201d, \u201cRight not to house soldiers during time of war\u201d, \u201cRight to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure\u201d, \u201cRights in criminal cases, including due process and indictment by grand jury for capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself\u201d, \u201cRight to a speedy trial by an impartial jury\u201d, \u201cRight to a jury trial in civil cases\u201d, \u201cRight to not face excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment\u201d, \u201cRights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution\u201d, and \u201cStates\u2019 rights to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government\u201d.\">\r\n<thead>\r\n<tr>\r\n<th colspan=\"2\">Rights and Liberties Protected by the First Ten Amendments<\/th>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/thead>\r\n<tbody>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">First Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Second Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Third Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to not house soldiers during time of war<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fourth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Rights in criminal cases, including due process and indictment by grand jury for capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Sixth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Seventh Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to a jury trial in civil cases<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Eighth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Right to not face excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Ninth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>Rights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<tr valign=\"top\">\r\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Tenth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\r\n<td>States\u2019 rights to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government<\/td>\r\n<\/tr>\r\n<\/tbody>\r\n<\/table>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758496009\" class=\"note middle-ground\">\r\n<div class=\"title\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h3 class=\"title\">Debating the Need for a Bill of Rights<\/h3>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758491610\">One of the most serious debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was over the necessity of limiting the power of the new federal government with a Bill of Rights. As we saw in this section, the Federalists believed a Bill of Rights was unnecessary\u2014and perhaps even dangerous to liberty, because it might invite violations of rights that weren\u2019t included in it\u2014while the Anti-Federalists thought the national government would prove adept at expanding its powers and influence and that citizens couldn\u2019t depend on the good judgment of Congress alone to protect their rights.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758341822\">As George Washington\u2019s call for a bill of rights in his first inaugural address suggested, while the Federalists ultimately had to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in order to win ratification, and the Anti-Federalists would soon be proved right that the national government might intrude on civil liberties. In 1798, at the behest of President John Adams during the Quasi-War with France, Congress passed a series of four laws collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These were drafted to allow the president to imprison or deport foreign citizens he believed were \u201cdangerous to the peace and safety of the United States\u201d and to restrict speech and newspaper articles that were critical of the federal government or its officials; the laws were primarily used against members and supporters of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758665838\">State laws and constitutions protecting free speech and freedom of the press proved ineffective in limiting this new federal power. Although the courts did not decide on the constitutionality of these laws at the time, most scholars believe the Sedition Act, in particular, would be unconstitutional if it had remained in effect. Three of the four laws were repealed in the Jefferson administration, but one\u2014the Alien Enemies Act\u2014remains on the books today. Two centuries later, the issue of free speech and freedom of the press during times of international conflict remains a subject of public debate.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758378275\"><em>Should the government be able to restrict or censor unpatriotic, disloyal, or critical speech in times of international conflict? How much freedom should journalists have to report on stories from the perspective of enemies or to repeat propaganda from opposing forces?<\/em><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758545713\" class=\"bc-section section\">\r\n<h1>EXTENDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES<\/h1>\r\nIn the decades following the Constitution\u2019s ratification, the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Supreme Court<\/span> declined to expand the Bill of Rights to curb the power of the states, most notably in the 1833 case of <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Barron v. Baltimore<\/em><\/span>.\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Barron v. Baltimore<\/em>, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nIn this case, which dealt with property rights under the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifth Amendment<\/span>, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Bill of Rights applied only to actions by the federal government. Explaining the court\u2019s ruling, Chief Justice John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Marshall<\/span> wrote that it was incorrect to argue that \u201cthe Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their [Federal] government.\u201d\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758491068\">In the wake of the Civil War, however, the prevailing thinking about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states changed. Soon after slavery was abolished by the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Thirteenth Amendment<\/span>, state governments\u2014particularly those in the former Confederacy\u2014began to pass \u201cblack codes\u201d that restricted the rights of former slaves and effectively relegated them to second-class citizenship under their state laws and constitutions. Angered by these actions, members of the Radical Republican faction in Congress demanded that the laws be overturned. In the short term, they advocated suspending civilian government in most of the southern states and replacing politicians who had enacted the black codes. Their long-term solution was to propose two amendments to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of freed slaves on an equal standing with whites; these rights became the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fourteenth Amendment<\/span>, which dealt with civil liberties and rights in general, and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifteenth Amendment<\/span>, which protected the right to vote in particular. But, the right to vote did not yet apply to women or to Native Americans.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_04_01_Fourteenth\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\r\n\r\n[caption id=\"\" align=\"aligncenter\" width=\"825\"]<img src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162922\/OSC_AmGov_04_01_Fourteenth.jpg\" alt=\"Photo A is of John Bingham. Photo B is of Abraham Lincoln.\" width=\"825\" height=\"517\" \/> Representative John Bingham (R-OH) (a) is considered the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted on July 9, 1868. Influenced by his mentor, Salmon P. Chase, Bingham was a strong supporter of the antislavery cause; after Chase lost the Republican presidential nomination to Abraham Lincoln (b), Bingham became one of the president\u2019s most ardent supporters.[\/caption]\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758390677\">With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, civil liberties gained more clarification. First, the amendment says, \u201cno State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,\u201d which is a provision that echoes the privileges and immunities clause in <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article IV<\/span>, Section 2, of the original Constitution ensuring that states treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens. (To use an example from today, the punishment for speeding by an out-of-state driver cannot be more severe than the punishment for an in-state driver). Legal scholars and the courts have extensively debated the meaning of this privileges or immunities clause over the years; some have argued that it was supposed to extend the entire <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bill of Rights<\/span> (or at least the first eight amendments) to the states, while others have argued that only some rights are extended. In 1999, Justice John Paul <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Stevens<\/span>, writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, argued in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Saenz v. Roe<\/em><\/span> that the clause protects the right to travel from one state to another.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Saenz v. Roe<\/em>, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\nMore recently, Justice Clarence <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Thomas<\/span> argued in the 2010 <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McDonald v. Chicago<\/em><\/span> ruling that the individual right to bear arms applied to the states because of this clause.\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>McDonald v. Chicago<\/em>, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163756118277\">The second provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that pertains to applying the Bill of Rights to the states is the <span>due process clause<\/span>, which says, \u201cnor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\u201d This provision is similar to the Fifth Amendment in that it also refers to \u201cdue process,\u201d a term that generally means people must be treated fairly and impartially by government officials (or with what is commonly referred to as substantive due process). Although the text of the provision does not mention rights specifically, the courts have held in a series of cases that it indicates there are certain fundamental liberties that cannot be denied by the states. For example, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Sherbert v. Verner<\/em><\/span> (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Sherbert v. Verner<\/em>, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).<\/div>\r\nBeginning in 1897, the Supreme Court has found that various provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting these fundamental liberties must be upheld by the states, even if their state constitutions and laws do not protect them as fully as the Bill of Rights does\u2014or at all. This means there has been a process of <span>selective incorporation<\/span> of the Bill of Rights into the practices of the states; in other words, the Constitution effectively inserts parts of the Bill of Rights into state laws and constitutions, even though it doesn\u2019t do so explicitly. When cases arise to clarify particular issues and procedures, the Supreme Court decides whether state laws violate the Bill of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758521606\">For example, under the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifth Amendment<\/span> a person can be tried in federal court for a felony\u2014a serious crime\u2014only after a grand jury issues an indictment indicating that it is reasonable to try the person for the crime in question. (A grand jury is a group of citizens charged with deciding whether there is enough evidence of a crime to prosecute someone.) But the Supreme Court has ruled that states don\u2019t have to use grand juries as long as they ensure people accused of crimes are indicted using an equally fair process.<\/p>\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758408632\">Selective incorporation is an ongoing process. When the Supreme Court initially decided in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual\u2019s right to keep and bear arms, it did not decide then that it was a fundamental liberty the states must uphold as well. It was only in the <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McDonald v. Chicago<\/em><\/span> case two years later that the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment into state law. Another area in which the Supreme Court gradually moved to incorporate the Bill of Rights regards censorship and the Fourteenth Amendment. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Near v. Minnesota<\/em><\/span> (1931), the Court disagreed with state courts regarding censorship and ruled it unconstitutional except in rare cases.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"note reference\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Near v. Minnesota<\/em>, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758405558\" class=\"summary\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758843711\">The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the freedoms of individuals from interference by government officials. Originally these protections were applied only to actions by the national government; different sets of rights and liberties were protected by state constitutions and laws, and even when the rights themselves were the same, the level of protection for them often differed by definition across the states. Since the Civil War, as a result of the passage and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and a series of Supreme Court decisions, most of the Bill of Rights\u2019 protections of civil liberties have been expanded to cover actions by state governments as well through a process of selective incorporation. Nonetheless there is still vigorous debate about what these rights entail and how they should be balanced against the interests of others and of society as a whole.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758762389\" class=\"review-questions\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758655917\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758447933\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758655917\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758447933\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163756098316\">The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because ________.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758547840\">\r\n \t<li>key states refused to ratify the Constitution unless it was added<\/li>\r\n \t<li>Alexander Hamilton believed it was necessary<\/li>\r\n \t<li>it was part of the Articles of Confederation<\/li>\r\n \t<li>it was originally part of the Declaration of Independence<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758601101\" class=\"solution\">[reveal-answer q=\"849027\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"849027\"]A[\/hidden-answer]<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758448114\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758583541\">An example of a right explicitly protected by the Constitution as drafted at the Constitutional Convention is the ________.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758382524\">\r\n \t<li>right to free speech<\/li>\r\n \t<li>right to keep and bear arms<\/li>\r\n \t<li>right to a writ of habeas corpus<\/li>\r\n \t<li>right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758448256\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758716261\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758512946\">The Fourteenth Amendment was critically important for civil liberties because it ________.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758841827\">\r\n \t<li>guaranteed freed slaves the right to vote<\/li>\r\n \t<li>outlawed slavery<\/li>\r\n \t<li>helped start the process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights<\/li>\r\n \t<li>allowed the states to continue to enact black codes<\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758533626\" class=\"solution\">[reveal-answer q=\"237272\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"237272\"]C[\/hidden-answer]<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758485891\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758494584\">Briefly explain the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758446672\" class=\"exercise\">\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758392025\" class=\"problem\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758383582\">Briefly explain the concept of selective incorporation, and why it became necessary.<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758843692\" class=\"solution\">\r\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758420776\">[reveal-answer q=\"904301\"]Show Answer[\/reveal-answer]\r\n[hidden-answer a=\"904301\"]Selective incorporation is the process of expanding the application of the Bill of Rights to also include the states. It became necessary in order to guarantee people\u2019s civil liberties equally across all states.[\/hidden-answer]<\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n<h2>Glossary<\/h2>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758507332\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>civil liberties<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758474793\">limitations on the power of government, designed to ensure personal freedoms<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758602314\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>civil rights<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758527199\">guarantees of equal treatment by government authorities<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758706972\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>due process clause<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758681062\">provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that limit government power to deny people \u201clife, liberty, or property\u201d on an unfair basis<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758492935\" class=\"definition\">\r\n \t<dt>selective incorporation<\/dt>\r\n \t<dd id=\"fs-id1163758492714\">the gradual process of making some guarantees of the Bill of Rights (so far) apply to state governments and the national government<\/dd>\r\n<\/dl>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<div class=\"textbox learning-objectives\">\n<h3>Learning Objectives<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163757302522\">By the end of this section, you will be able to:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"fs-id1163757474539\">\n<li>Define civil liberties and civil rights<\/li>\n<li>Describe the origin of civil liberties in the U.S. context<\/li>\n<li>Identify the key positions on civil liberties taken at the Constitutional Convention<\/li>\n<li>Explain the Civil War origin of concern that the states should respect civil liberties<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758503353\">The <a class=\"target-chapter\" href=\"\/contents\/e752e52a-f95b-4e60-8c26-d6d93503b060\">U.S. Constitution<\/a>\u2014in particular, the first ten amendments that form the Bill of Rights\u2014protects the freedoms and rights of individuals. It does not limit this protection just to citizens or adults; instead, in most cases, the Constitution simply refers to \u201cpersons,\u201d which over time has grown to mean that even children, visitors from other countries, and immigrants\u2014permanent or temporary, legal or undocumented\u2014enjoy the same freedoms when they are in the United States or its territories as adult citizens do. So, whether you are a Japanese tourist visiting Disney World or someone who has stayed beyond the limit of days allowed on your visa, you do not sacrifice your liberties. In everyday conversation, we tend to treat freedoms, liberties, and rights as being effectively the same thing\u2014similar to how separation of powers and checks and balances are often used as if they are interchangeable, when in fact they are distinct concepts.<\/p>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758521306\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h2>DEFINING CIVIL LIBERTIES<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758498706\">To be more precise in their language, political scientists and legal experts make a distinction between civil liberties and civil rights, even though the Constitution has been interpreted to protect both. We typically envision <span>civil liberties<\/span> as being limitations on government power, intended to protect freedoms that governments may not legally intrude on. For example, the First Amendment denies the government the power to prohibit \u201cthe free exercise\u201d of religion; the states and the national government cannot forbid people to follow a religion of their choice, even if politicians and judges think the religion is misguided, blasphemous, or otherwise inappropriate. You are free to create your own religion and recruit followers to it (subject to the U.S. Supreme Court deeming it a religion), even if both society and government disapprove of its tenets. That said, the way you practice your religion may be regulated if it impinges on the rights of others. Similarly, the Eighth Amendment says the government cannot impose \u201ccruel and unusual punishments\u201d on individuals for their criminal acts. Although the definitions of <em>cruel<\/em> and <em>unusual<\/em> have expanded over the years, as we will see later in this chapter, the courts have generally and consistently interpreted this provision as making it unconstitutional for government officials to torture suspects.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758504770\"><span>Civil rights<\/span>, on the other hand, are guarantees that government officials will treat people equally and that decisions will be made on the basis of merit rather than race, gender, or other personal characteristics. Because of the Constitution\u2019s civil rights guarantee, it is unlawful for a school or university run by a state government to treat students differently based on their race, ethnicity, age, sex, or national origin. In the 1960s and 1970s, many states had separate schools where only students of a certain race or gender were able to study. However, the courts decided that these policies violated the civil rights of students who could not be admitted because of those rules.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Green v. County School Board of New Kent County<\/em>, 391 U.S. 430 (1968); <em>Allen v. Wright<\/em>, 468 U.S. 737 (1984).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758390125\">The idea that Americans\u2014indeed, people in general\u2014have fundamental rights and liberties was at the core of the arguments in favor of their independence. In writing the <a class=\"target-chapter\" href=\"\/contents\/634b2a40-8f9d-4eca-b8b4-9f8df33f556b\">Declaration of Independence<\/a> in 1776, Thomas <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Jefferson<\/span> drew on the ideas of John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Locke<\/span> to express the colonists\u2019 belief that they had certain inalienable or natural rights that no ruler had the power or authority to deny to his or her subjects. It was a scathing legal indictment of King George III for violating the colonists\u2019 liberties. Although the Declaration of Independence does not guarantee specific freedoms, its language was instrumental in inspiring many of the states to adopt protections for civil liberties and rights in their own constitutions, and in expressing principles of the founding era that have resonated in the United States since its independence. In particular, Jefferson\u2019s words \u201call men are created equal\u201d became the centerpiece of struggles for the rights of women and minorities.<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_04_01_Equal\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 535px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162912\/OSC_AmGov_04_01_Equal.jpg\" alt=\"A photo of three civil rights activists, from left to right, Sidney Poitier, Harry Belafonte, and Charlton Heston.\" width=\"525\" height=\"527\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Actors and civil rights activists Sidney Poitier (left), Harry Belafonte (center), and Charlton Heston (right) on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial on August 28, 1963, during the March on Washington.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758469962\" class=\"note american government link-to-learning\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Founded in 1920, the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.openstaxcollege.org\/l\/29aclu\">American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)<\/a> is one of the oldest interest groups in the United States. The mission of this non-partisan, not-for-profit organization is \u201cto defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.\u201d Many of the Supreme Court cases in this chapter were litigated by, or with the support of, the ACLU. The ACLU offers a <a href=\"https:\/\/www.openstaxcollege.org\/l\/29acluaffiliate\">listing of state and local chapters<\/a> on their website.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758556885\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h2>CIVIL LIBERTIES AND THE CONSTITUTION<\/h2>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758529444\">The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Constitution<\/span> as written in 1787 did not include a <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bill of Rights<\/span>, although the idea of including one was proposed and, after brief discussion, dismissed in the final week of the Constitutional Convention. The framers of the Constitution believed they faced much more pressing concerns than the protection of civil rights and liberties, most notably keeping the fragile union together in the light of internal unrest and external threats.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758654283\">Moreover, the framers thought that they had adequately covered rights issues in the main body of the document. Indeed, the Federalists did include in the Constitution some protections against legislative acts that might restrict the liberties of citizens, based on the history of real and perceived abuses by both British kings and parliaments as well as royal governors. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 9, the Constitution limits the power of Congress in three ways: prohibiting the passage of bills of attainder, prohibiting ex post facto laws, and limiting the ability of Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758666231\">A <span class=\"no-emphasis\">bill of attainder<\/span> is a law that convicts or punishes someone for a crime without a trial, a tactic used fairly frequently in England against the king\u2019s enemies. Prohibition of such laws means that the U.S. Congress cannot simply punish people who are unpopular or seem to be guilty of crimes. An <span class=\"no-emphasis\">ex post facto law<\/span> has a retroactive effect: it can be used to punish crimes that were not crimes at the time they were committed, or it can be used to increase the severity of punishment after the fact.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758327308\">Finally, the writ of <span class=\"no-emphasis\">habeas corpus<\/span> is used in our common-law legal system to demand that a neutral judge decide whether someone has been lawfully detained. Particularly in times of war, or even in response to threats against national security, the government has held suspected enemy agents without access to civilian courts, often without access to lawyers or a defense, seeking instead to try them before military tribunals or detain them indefinitely without trial. For example, during the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln detained suspected Confederate saboteurs and sympathizers in Union-controlled states and attempted to have them tried in <span class=\"no-emphasis\">military court<\/span>s, leading the Supreme Court to rule in <em>Ex parte Milligan<\/em> that the government could not bypass the civilian court system in states where it was operating.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Ex parte Milligan<\/em>, 71 U.S. 2 (1866).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758580326\">During World War II, the Roosevelt administration interned Japanese Americans and had other suspected enemy agents\u2014including U.S. citizens\u2014tried by military courts rather than by the civilian justice system, a choice the Supreme Court upheld in <em>Ex parte Quirin<\/em>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Ex parte Quirin<\/em>, 317 U.S. 1 (1942); See William H. Rehnquist. 1998. <em>All the Laws but One: Civil Liberties in Wartime<\/em>. New York: William Morrow.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>More recently, in the wake of the 9\/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Bush and Obama administrations detained suspected terrorists captured both within and outside the United States and sought, with mixed results, to avoid trials in civilian courts. Hence, there have been times in our history when national security issues trumped individual liberties.<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_04_01_NazisWWII\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 535px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162915\/OSC_AmGov_04_01_NazisWWII.jpg\" alt=\"A photo of a group of people in a military commission, seated in chairs around a number of tables arranged in a U shape.\" width=\"525\" height=\"396\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Richard Quirin and seven other trained German saboteurs had once lived in the United States and had secretly returned in June 1942. Upon their capture, a military commission (shown here) convicted the men\u2014six of them received death sentences. Ex parte Quirin set a precedent for the trial by military commission of any unlawful combatant against the United States. (credit: Library of Congress)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163756085955\">Debate has always swirled over these issues. The <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Federalists<\/span> reasoned that the limited set of enumerated powers of Congress, along with the limitations on those powers in <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article I<\/span>, Section 9, would suffice, and no separate bill of rights was needed. Alexander <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Hamilton<\/span>, writing as Publius in <em>Federalist<\/em> No. 84, argued that the Constitution was \u201cmerely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation,\u201d rather than to concern itself with \u201cthe regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.\u201d Hamilton went on to argue that listing some rights might actually be dangerous, because it would provide a pretext for people to claim that rights <em>not<\/em> included in such a list were not protected. Later, James <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Madison<\/span>, in his speech introducing the proposed amendments that would become the Bill of Rights, acknowledged another Federalist argument: \u201cIt has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several state constitutions.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">American History from Revolution to Reconstruction and Beyond, \u201cMadison Speech Proposing the Bill of Rights June 8 1789,\u201d http:\/\/www.let.rug.nl\/usa\/documents\/1786-1800\/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php (March 4, 2016).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>For that matter, the Articles of Confederation had not included a specific listing of rights either.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758378331\">However, the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Anti-Federalists<\/span> argued that the Federalists\u2019 position was incorrect and perhaps even insincere. The Anti-Federalists believed provisions such as the elastic clause in Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution would allow Congress to legislate on matters well beyond the limited ones foreseen by the Constitution\u2019s authors; thus, they held that a bill of rights was necessary. One of the Anti-Federalists, <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Brutus<\/span>, whom most scholars believe to be Robert <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Yates<\/span>, wrote: \u201cThe powers, rights, and authority, granted to the general government by this Constitution, are as complete, with respect to every object to which they extend, as that of any state government\u2014It reaches to every thing which concerns human happiness\u2014Life, liberty, and property, are under its controul [sic]. There is the same reason, therefore, that the exercise of power, in this case, should be restrained within proper limits, as in that of the state governments.\u201d<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\">Constitution Society, \u201cTo the Citizens of the State of New-York,\u201d http:\/\/www.constitution.org\/afp\/brutus02.htm (March 4, 2016).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>The experience of the past two centuries has suggested that the Anti-Federalists may have been correct in this regard; while the states retain a great deal of importance, the scope and powers of the national government are much broader today than in 1787\u2014likely beyond even the imaginings of the Federalists themselves.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758363645\">The struggle to have rights clearly delineated and the decision of the framers to omit a bill of rights nearly derailed the ratification process. While some of the states were willing to ratify without any further guarantees, in some of the larger states\u2014New York and Virginia in particular\u2014the Constitution\u2019s lack of specified rights became a serious point of contention. The Constitution could go into effect with the support of only nine states, but the Federalists knew it could not be effective without the participation of the largest states. To secure majorities in favor of ratification in New York and Virginia, as well as Massachusetts, they agreed to consider incorporating provisions suggested by the ratifying states as amendments to the Constitution.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758461416\">Ultimately, James Madison delivered on this promise by proposing a package of amendments in the First Congress, drawing from the Declaration of Rights in the Virginia state constitution, suggestions from the ratification conventions, and other sources, which were extensively debated in both houses of Congress and ultimately proposed as twelve separate amendments for ratification by the states. Ten of the amendments were successfully ratified by the requisite 75 percent of the states and became known as the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bill of Rights<\/span>.<\/p>\n<table id=\"fs-id1163758489712\" summary=\"This table has two columns and ten rows. The first column lists the Amendments in the Bill of Rights, and has the following values: \u201cFirst Amendment\u201d, \u201cSecond Amendment\u201d, \u201cThird Amendment\u201d, \u201cFourth Amendment\u201d, \u201cFifth Amendment\u201d, \u201cSixth Amendment\u201d, \u201cSeventh Amendment\u201d, Eight Amendment\u201d, \u201cNinth Amendment\u201d, and \u201cTenth Amendment\u201d. The second column lists the rights covered in each Amendment, and has the following values: \u201cRight to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances\u201d, \u201cRight to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia\u201d, \u201cRight not to house soldiers during time of war\u201d, \u201cRight to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure\u201d, \u201cRights in criminal cases, including due process and indictment by grand jury for capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself\u201d, \u201cRight to a speedy trial by an impartial jury\u201d, \u201cRight to a jury trial in civil cases\u201d, \u201cRight to not face excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment\u201d, \u201cRights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution\u201d, and \u201cStates\u2019 rights to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government\u201d.\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th colspan=\"2\">Rights and Liberties Protected by the First Ten Amendments<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">First Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Second Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to keep and bear arms to maintain a well-regulated militia<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Third Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to not house soldiers during time of war<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fourth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Rights in criminal cases, including due process and indictment by grand jury for capital crimes, as well as the right not to testify against oneself<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Sixth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Seventh Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to a jury trial in civil cases<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Eighth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Right to not face excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishment<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Ninth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>Rights retained by the people, even if they are not specifically enumerated by the Constitution<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr valign=\"top\">\n<td><span class=\"no-emphasis\">Tenth Amendment<\/span><\/td>\n<td>States\u2019 rights to powers not specifically delegated to the federal government<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758496009\" class=\"note middle-ground\">\n<div class=\"title\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h3 class=\"title\">Debating the Need for a Bill of Rights<\/h3>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758491610\">One of the most serious debates between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was over the necessity of limiting the power of the new federal government with a Bill of Rights. As we saw in this section, the Federalists believed a Bill of Rights was unnecessary\u2014and perhaps even dangerous to liberty, because it might invite violations of rights that weren\u2019t included in it\u2014while the Anti-Federalists thought the national government would prove adept at expanding its powers and influence and that citizens couldn\u2019t depend on the good judgment of Congress alone to protect their rights.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758341822\">As George Washington\u2019s call for a bill of rights in his first inaugural address suggested, while the Federalists ultimately had to add the Bill of Rights to the Constitution in order to win ratification, and the Anti-Federalists would soon be proved right that the national government might intrude on civil liberties. In 1798, at the behest of President John Adams during the Quasi-War with France, Congress passed a series of four laws collectively known as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These were drafted to allow the president to imprison or deport foreign citizens he believed were \u201cdangerous to the peace and safety of the United States\u201d and to restrict speech and newspaper articles that were critical of the federal government or its officials; the laws were primarily used against members and supporters of the opposition Democratic-Republican Party.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758665838\">State laws and constitutions protecting free speech and freedom of the press proved ineffective in limiting this new federal power. Although the courts did not decide on the constitutionality of these laws at the time, most scholars believe the Sedition Act, in particular, would be unconstitutional if it had remained in effect. Three of the four laws were repealed in the Jefferson administration, but one\u2014the Alien Enemies Act\u2014remains on the books today. Two centuries later, the issue of free speech and freedom of the press during times of international conflict remains a subject of public debate.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758378275\"><em>Should the government be able to restrict or censor unpatriotic, disloyal, or critical speech in times of international conflict? How much freedom should journalists have to report on stories from the perspective of enemies or to repeat propaganda from opposing forces?<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758545713\" class=\"bc-section section\">\n<h1>EXTENDING THE BILL OF RIGHTS TO THE STATES<\/h1>\n<p>In the decades following the Constitution\u2019s ratification, the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Supreme Court<\/span> declined to expand the Bill of Rights to curb the power of the states, most notably in the 1833 case of <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Barron v. Baltimore<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Barron v. Baltimore<\/em>, 32 U.S. 243 (1833).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>In this case, which dealt with property rights under the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifth Amendment<\/span>, the Supreme Court unanimously decided that the Bill of Rights applied only to actions by the federal government. Explaining the court\u2019s ruling, Chief Justice John <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Marshall<\/span> wrote that it was incorrect to argue that \u201cthe Constitution was intended to secure the people of the several states against the undue exercise of power by their respective state governments; as well as against that which might be attempted by their [Federal] government.\u201d<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758491068\">In the wake of the Civil War, however, the prevailing thinking about the application of the Bill of Rights to the states changed. Soon after slavery was abolished by the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Thirteenth Amendment<\/span>, state governments\u2014particularly those in the former Confederacy\u2014began to pass \u201cblack codes\u201d that restricted the rights of former slaves and effectively relegated them to second-class citizenship under their state laws and constitutions. Angered by these actions, members of the Radical Republican faction in Congress demanded that the laws be overturned. In the short term, they advocated suspending civilian government in most of the southern states and replacing politicians who had enacted the black codes. Their long-term solution was to propose two amendments to the Constitution to guarantee the rights of freed slaves on an equal standing with whites; these rights became the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fourteenth Amendment<\/span>, which dealt with civil liberties and rights in general, and the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifteenth Amendment<\/span>, which protected the right to vote in particular. But, the right to vote did not yet apply to women or to Native Americans.<\/p>\n<div id=\"OSC_AmGov_04_01_Fourteenth\" class=\"bc-figure figure\">\n<div style=\"width: 835px\" class=\"wp-caption aligncenter\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com\/courses-images\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/2292\/2017\/08\/08162922\/OSC_AmGov_04_01_Fourteenth.jpg\" alt=\"Photo A is of John Bingham. Photo B is of Abraham Lincoln.\" width=\"825\" height=\"517\" \/><\/p>\n<p class=\"wp-caption-text\">Representative John Bingham (R-OH) (a) is considered the author of the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted on July 9, 1868. Influenced by his mentor, Salmon P. Chase, Bingham was a strong supporter of the antislavery cause; after Chase lost the Republican presidential nomination to Abraham Lincoln (b), Bingham became one of the president\u2019s most ardent supporters.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758390677\">With the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868, civil liberties gained more clarification. First, the amendment says, \u201cno State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States,\u201d which is a provision that echoes the privileges and immunities clause in <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Article IV<\/span>, Section 2, of the original Constitution ensuring that states treat citizens of other states the same as their own citizens. (To use an example from today, the punishment for speeding by an out-of-state driver cannot be more severe than the punishment for an in-state driver). Legal scholars and the courts have extensively debated the meaning of this privileges or immunities clause over the years; some have argued that it was supposed to extend the entire <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Bill of Rights<\/span> (or at least the first eight amendments) to the states, while others have argued that only some rights are extended. In 1999, Justice John Paul <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Stevens<\/span>, writing for a majority of the Supreme Court, argued in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Saenz v. Roe<\/em><\/span> that the clause protects the right to travel from one state to another.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Saenz v. Roe<\/em>, 526 U.S. 489 (1999).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p>More recently, Justice Clarence <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Thomas<\/span> argued in the 2010 <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McDonald v. Chicago<\/em><\/span> ruling that the individual right to bear arms applied to the states because of this clause.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>McDonald v. Chicago<\/em>, 561 U.S. 742 (2010).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163756118277\">The second provision of the Fourteenth Amendment that pertains to applying the Bill of Rights to the states is the <span>due process clause<\/span>, which says, \u201cnor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.\u201d This provision is similar to the Fifth Amendment in that it also refers to \u201cdue process,\u201d a term that generally means people must be treated fairly and impartially by government officials (or with what is commonly referred to as substantive due process). Although the text of the provision does not mention rights specifically, the courts have held in a series of cases that it indicates there are certain fundamental liberties that cannot be denied by the states. For example, in <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Sherbert v. Verner<\/em><\/span> (1963), the Supreme Court ruled that states could not deny unemployment benefits to an individual who turned down a job because it required working on the Sabbath.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Sherbert v. Verner<\/em>, 374 U.S. 398 (1963).<\/div>\n<p>Beginning in 1897, the Supreme Court has found that various provisions of the Bill of Rights protecting these fundamental liberties must be upheld by the states, even if their state constitutions and laws do not protect them as fully as the Bill of Rights does\u2014or at all. This means there has been a process of <span>selective incorporation<\/span> of the Bill of Rights into the practices of the states; in other words, the Constitution effectively inserts parts of the Bill of Rights into state laws and constitutions, even though it doesn\u2019t do so explicitly. When cases arise to clarify particular issues and procedures, the Supreme Court decides whether state laws violate the Bill of Rights and are therefore unconstitutional.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758521606\">For example, under the <span class=\"no-emphasis\">Fifth Amendment<\/span> a person can be tried in federal court for a felony\u2014a serious crime\u2014only after a grand jury issues an indictment indicating that it is reasonable to try the person for the crime in question. (A grand jury is a group of citizens charged with deciding whether there is enough evidence of a crime to prosecute someone.) But the Supreme Court has ruled that states don\u2019t have to use grand juries as long as they ensure people accused of crimes are indicted using an equally fair process.<\/p>\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758408632\">Selective incorporation is an ongoing process. When the Supreme Court initially decided in 2008 that the Second Amendment protects an individual\u2019s right to keep and bear arms, it did not decide then that it was a fundamental liberty the states must uphold as well. It was only in the <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>McDonald v. Chicago<\/em><\/span> case two years later that the Supreme Court incorporated the Second Amendment into state law. Another area in which the Supreme Court gradually moved to incorporate the Bill of Rights regards censorship and the Fourteenth Amendment. In <span class=\"no-emphasis\"><em>Near v. Minnesota<\/em><\/span> (1931), the Court disagreed with state courts regarding censorship and ruled it unconstitutional except in rare cases.<\/p>\n<div class=\"note reference\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\" style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Near v. Minnesota<\/em>, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758405558\" class=\"summary\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758843711\">The Bill of Rights is designed to protect the freedoms of individuals from interference by government officials. Originally these protections were applied only to actions by the national government; different sets of rights and liberties were protected by state constitutions and laws, and even when the rights themselves were the same, the level of protection for them often differed by definition across the states. Since the Civil War, as a result of the passage and ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and a series of Supreme Court decisions, most of the Bill of Rights\u2019 protections of civil liberties have been expanded to cover actions by state governments as well through a process of selective incorporation. Nonetheless there is still vigorous debate about what these rights entail and how they should be balanced against the interests of others and of society as a whole.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758762389\" class=\"review-questions\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758655917\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758447933\" class=\"problem\">\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758655917\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758447933\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163756098316\">The Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution because ________.<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758547840\">\n<li>key states refused to ratify the Constitution unless it was added<\/li>\n<li>Alexander Hamilton believed it was necessary<\/li>\n<li>it was part of the Articles of Confederation<\/li>\n<li>it was originally part of the Declaration of Independence<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758601101\" class=\"solution\">\n<div class=\"qa-wrapper\" style=\"display: block\"><span class=\"show-answer collapsed\" style=\"cursor: pointer\" data-target=\"q849027\">Show Answer<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"q849027\" class=\"hidden-answer\" style=\"display: none\">A<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758448114\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758583541\">An example of a right explicitly protected by the Constitution as drafted at the Constitutional Convention is the ________.<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758382524\">\n<li>right to free speech<\/li>\n<li>right to keep and bear arms<\/li>\n<li>right to a writ of habeas corpus<\/li>\n<li>right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758448256\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758716261\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758512946\">The Fourteenth Amendment was critically important for civil liberties because it ________.<\/p>\n<ol id=\"fs-id1163758841827\">\n<li>guaranteed freed slaves the right to vote<\/li>\n<li>outlawed slavery<\/li>\n<li>helped start the process of selective incorporation of the Bill of Rights<\/li>\n<li>allowed the states to continue to enact black codes<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758533626\" class=\"solution\">\n<div class=\"qa-wrapper\" style=\"display: block\"><span class=\"show-answer collapsed\" style=\"cursor: pointer\" data-target=\"q237272\">Show Answer<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"q237272\" class=\"hidden-answer\" style=\"display: none\">C<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758485891\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758494584\">Briefly explain the difference between civil liberties and civil rights.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758446672\" class=\"exercise\">\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758392025\" class=\"problem\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758383582\">Briefly explain the concept of selective incorporation, and why it became necessary.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div id=\"fs-id1163758843692\" class=\"solution\">\n<p id=\"fs-id1163758420776\">\n<div class=\"qa-wrapper\" style=\"display: block\"><span class=\"show-answer collapsed\" style=\"cursor: pointer\" data-target=\"q904301\">Show Answer<\/span><\/p>\n<div id=\"q904301\" class=\"hidden-answer\" style=\"display: none\">Selective incorporation is the process of expanding the application of the Bill of Rights to also include the states. It became necessary in order to guarantee people\u2019s civil liberties equally across all states.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<h2>Glossary<\/h2>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758507332\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>civil liberties<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758474793\">limitations on the power of government, designed to ensure personal freedoms<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758602314\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>civil rights<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758527199\">guarantees of equal treatment by government authorities<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758706972\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>due process clause<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758681062\">provisions of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments that limit government power to deny people \u201clife, liberty, or property\u201d on an unfair basis<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<dl id=\"fs-id1163758492935\" class=\"definition\">\n<dt>selective incorporation<\/dt>\n<dd id=\"fs-id1163758492714\">the gradual process of making some guarantees of the Bill of Rights (so far) apply to state governments and the national government<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t <section class=\"citations-section\" role=\"contentinfo\">\n\t\t\t <h3>Candela Citations<\/h3>\n\t\t\t\t\t <div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <div id=\"citation-list-95\">\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t <div class=\"licensing\"><div class=\"license-attribution-dropdown-subheading\">CC licensed content, Shared previously<\/div><ul class=\"citation-list\"><li>OpenStax American Government. <strong>Provided by<\/strong>: OpenStax CNX. <strong>Located at<\/strong>: <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14\">http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14<\/a>. <strong>License<\/strong>: <em><a target=\"_blank\" rel=\"license\" href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">CC BY: Attribution<\/a><\/em>. <strong>License Terms<\/strong>: Download for free at http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14<\/li><\/ul><\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t <\/div>\n\t\t\t <\/section>","protected":false},"author":17533,"menu_order":2,"template":"","meta":{"_candela_citation":"[{\"type\":\"cc\",\"description\":\"OpenStax American Government\",\"author\":\"\",\"organization\":\"OpenStax CNX\",\"url\":\"http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14\",\"project\":\"\",\"license\":\"cc-by\",\"license_terms\":\"Download for free at http:\/\/cnx.org\/contents\/5bcc0e59-7345-421d-8507-a1e4608685e8@18.14\"}]","CANDELA_OUTCOMES_GUID":"","pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":"cc-by"},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[50],"class_list":["post-95","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry","license-cc-by"],"part":89,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/95","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/17533"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/95\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":822,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/95\/revisions\/822"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/89"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/95\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=95"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=95"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=95"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/courses.lumenlearning.com\/suny-osamgovernment\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=95"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}