1 / 6

Unit 3 Objectives 30 C

Unit 3 Objectives 30 C. Melissa Marsland Joey Koch Chris Martin. 30 C .Assess the balance courts must maintain between governmental interests and individual rights. Limited Court and Individual Rights. Civil Liberties- Protection against government

venecia
Télécharger la présentation

Unit 3 Objectives 30 C

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Unit 3 Objectives30 C Melissa Marsland Joey Koch Chris Martin

  2. 30 C .Assess the balance courts must maintain between governmental interests and individual rights

  3. Limited Court and Individual Rights Civil Liberties- Protection against government They are: guarantees of the safety, of persons opinions and properties from arbitrary acts of government Civil Rights- sometimes reserved for those positive acts of government that seek to make constitutional guarantees a reality for all people Ex. Prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religious belief, or national origin

  4. Limited Court and Individual Rights All governments have and use authority over individuals The all important difference between a democratic government and a dictatorial one lies in the extent of that authority In a dictatorial regime, the governments power is practically unlimited, whereas in a democratic government, they are strictly limited to individual rights In the court system, they have to abide by the constitution, but some parts are open to interpretation for the ruling

  5. Case: Mapp vs. Ohio Court used the 4th amendment Dolree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an admittedly illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis of freedom of expression. Court ruled "all evidence obtained by searches and seizures in violation of the Constitution is inadmissible in a state court." This was a very historical and controversial decision by the supreme justice.

More Related