Civil Rights Vs Civil Liberties
The terms, civil liberties and civil rights, might be closely related to one another, but have often been inadvertently misused. Civil rights are actions within the law that the United States government uses (meaning that they have the right to intervene/enforce) to establish conditions that are equal for all human beings. For instance, citizens of the United States, with the proper qualifications, have the right to vote, meaning that right can be enforced through government intervention. Another common example would include freedom from employment discrimination founded on differences of disability, race, age, or gender (Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties). Two famous events that heavily tested our civil rights would include Hernandez v. Texas,
…show more content…
citizens “liberty” from restraints/actions enforced by the federal or state government(s). Common examples include the freedom of religion, which means that the government cannot legally interfere with (or dictate) a citizen’s choice of worship/religion, and the right to property, which prevents human beings from acquiring or trading items already owned by another individual (civil liberties). Affairs such as Marbury v. Madison or the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 famously tested our civil liberties by establishing the procedure of “judicial review” and compensation for the violated liberties of lawful citizens from previous events in U.S. history. Even though civil liberties and civil rights have many similarities, history has proven that they are two very different concepts based on the U.S. constitution, legislation, and various landmark court …show more content…
Madison. At the time, the secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission of the District of Columbia’s designated justice of the peace, William Marbury. In response, Marbury requested a writ of mandamus (or “an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion” (Mandamus).) to make commission delivery official amongst all members in government. Chief justice John Marshall refused Marbury’s request and concluded that the Supreme Court was not given the power by the Constitution to supply writs of mandamus even if elected officials, such as Marbury (or any other government officials), were entitled to their commissions (Marbury v. Madison). Even though the Supreme Court was denied power at the time, its power increased in the long-run by establishing that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (The Creation of the Federal Courts). Basically, the federal courts were given the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation and the concept of “judicial review” (which means that federal courts gained the power to null Congressional acts that conflicted with the Constitution) was officially established as a common practice during the lawmaking
citizens “liberty” from restraints/actions enforced by the federal or state government(s). Common examples include the freedom of religion, which means that the government cannot legally interfere with (or dictate) a citizen’s choice of worship/religion, and the right to property, which prevents human beings from acquiring or trading items already owned by another individual (civil liberties). Affairs such as Marbury v. Madison or the Civil Liberties Act of 1988 famously tested our civil liberties by establishing the procedure of “judicial review” and compensation for the violated liberties of lawful citizens from previous events in U.S. history. Even though civil liberties and civil rights have many similarities, history has proven that they are two very different concepts based on the U.S. constitution, legislation, and various landmark court …show more content…
Madison. At the time, the secretary of state, James Madison, refused to deliver the commission of the District of Columbia’s designated justice of the peace, William Marbury. In response, Marbury requested a writ of mandamus (or “an order from a court to an inferior government official ordering the government official to properly fulfill their official duties or correct an abuse of discretion” (Mandamus).) to make commission delivery official amongst all members in government. Chief justice John Marshall refused Marbury’s request and concluded that the Supreme Court was not given the power by the Constitution to supply writs of mandamus even if elected officials, such as Marbury (or any other government officials), were entitled to their commissions (Marbury v. Madison). Even though the Supreme Court was denied power at the time, its power increased in the long-run by establishing that “it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is” (The Creation of the Federal Courts). Basically, the federal courts were given the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation and the concept of “judicial review” (which means that federal courts gained the power to null Congressional acts that conflicted with the Constitution) was officially established as a common practice during the lawmaking