CJ – Introduction to Constitutional Law CJ140

Tonight’s Topic Review of the US Legal System from Unit 2 Review of the US Legal System from Unit 2 Discussion and Comparison of the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. Discussion and Comparison of the First and Second Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

CJ – Introduction to Constitutional Law Review of Last Weeks Unit: Unit 2: The U.S. Legal System and the Supreme Court CJ140-01

U.S. and State Government Systems

Federal Judicial System

Typical State Judicial System Supreme Court Court of Appeals District Court Trial Court Preliminary Hearing Court Magistrate

Statute vs. Common Law Statute –Codified rules voted on and passed though either State or Federal Congress –Important: Statutes set the rules Elements of the crime Rules of evidence Etc. Common Law (case law or precedent) –Interpretation of the rules adopted over time through previous court holdings. –Important: Common law defines rules

Holding: – Decision by the court that defines the rule of law, how it should be interpreted, and what should happen in that case. Judges apply the holdings of prior decisions to the facts in our case to determine the outcome.

Stare Decisis The principle that lower court must adhere to rules established by a superior court. –Must follow precedent established by a superior court. Example: –Miranda Warnings Arizona conviction based on a typed statement Appeal was upheld by Arizona Supreme Court because Miranda signed confession that stated the confession was voluntary (old rule) Writ of Cert to Supreme Court who held right to counsel and right to remain silent must be expressly given before any conversation. (new rule) –Stare Decisis? Every law enforcement officer must give warnings

Unit 3: The First and Second Amendments

CJ140 – Introduction to Constitutional Law Unit 3: The First Amendment

First Amendment Broken Down Congress shall make no law Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Speech NOT Protected by the 1 st So don’t say it Libel or Slander Lies are not protected. Example DON’T yell FIRE in a theatre if there is no fire. Threats Any language that threatens or incites violence is not protected Example DON’T hold a rally and tell people to kill Obscenities

1 st Amendment Discussion Do laws prohibiting gangs violate the 1 st amendment?

1 st Amendment Discussion Do laws prohibiting gangs violate the 1 st amendment? Would prosecuting the wikileaks owner Julian Assange violate the 1 st amendment?

1 st Amendment Discussion Do laws prohibiting gangs violate the 1 st amendment? Would prosecuting the wikileaks owner Julian Assange violate the 1 st amendment? Is pornography like Hustler magazine protected by the 1 st Amendment?

1 st Amendment Discussion Do laws prohibiting gangs violate the 1 st amendment? Would prosecuting the wikileaks owner Julian Assange violate the 1 st amendment? Is pornography like Hustler magazine protected by the 1 st Amendment? –Obscenity standard = example of the flexibility of our laws…they change with the times.

CJ140 – Introduction to Constitutional Law Unit 3: The Second Amendment

Second Amendment Broken Down Two Clauses Two Clauses – A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, – the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

CJ140 – Introduction to Constitutional Law Discussion of DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. ____ (2008). CJ140

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. ____ (2008). “The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.” “The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. ____ (2008). “The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.” “The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. ____ (2008). “The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.” “The two sides in this case have set out very different interpretations of the Amendment. Petitioners and today’s dissenting Justices believe that it protects only the right to possess and carry a firearm in connection with militia service. See Brief for Petitioners 11–12; post, at 1 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). Respondent argues that it protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. See Brief for Respondent 2–4.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008).

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER, 554 U.S. ____ (2008). Holding: 1.The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home 2.The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. Concealed carry laws are still constitutional. 3.The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self- defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ____ (2008).