Independence, freedom, or the right to self-governance.

Those rights essential to citizens that allow them to earn a living, to acquire and transfer property, and to produce, buy, and sell goods and services in free markets.

Those rights that prohibit government from acting in certain ways; rights that are not to be interfered with.

Those rights of individuals in their private capacity, such as the rights to life and liberty, as distinguished from the political rights of citizens, such as the rights to vote and to hold public office.

All rights of a citizen in a free society that are clearly expressed and guaranteed by the Constitution and implied by natural laws.

Those rights that require overt government action, as opposed to negative rights that require government not to act in specified ways. Examples of positive rights are those to public education and, in some cases, to medical care, old age pensions, food, or housing.

Moral or legal claims justified in ways that are generally accepted within a society or the international community.

The "Father of the Constitution" was born to a wealthy Virginia family. He was taught at home and in private schools, then graduated from the College of New Jersey. While deciding whether to become a lawyer or minister, Madison became involved in the revolutionary cause, thereby entering state and local politics. His poor health kept him from serving in the military. In 1780, Madison was chosen to serve in the Continental Congress, where he played a major role. He was one of the most influential voices calling for a constitutional convention. He came to the Philadelphia Convention with a plan for the new government, took extensive notes on the proceedings, spoke more than 150 times, and worked tirelessly on various committees. As one of the authors of The Federalist, Madison was also a key figure in the battle for ratification. Following the convention, Madison served as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, helping to frame the Bill of Rights and organize the executive department. Under Jefferson, Madison served as secretary of state. He then succeeded Jefferson as president. In retirement, Madison continued to speak out on public issues.

Hamilton was a senior aide-de-camp to General Washington and an artillery captain during the Revolutionary War. He was a delegate from New York to the Philadelphia Convention and one of three authors of The Federalist, written to urge ratification of the U.S. Constitution. He later served as the first secretary of the treasury, put the nation's finances on a firm footing and advocated a strong national government.

Case Summary

In 1816, Congress chartered The Second Bank of the United States. In 1818, the state of Maryland passed legislation to impose taxes on the bank. James W. McCulloch, the cashier of the Baltimore branch of the bank, refused to pay the tax.

Question(s)

The case presented two questions: Did Congress have the authority to establish the bank? Did the Maryland law unconstitutionally interfere with congressional powers?

Answer(s)

Yes. No. In a unanimous decision, the Court held that Congress had the power to incorporate the bank and that Maryland could not tax instruments of the national government employed in the execution of constitutional powers. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Marshall noted that Congress possessed unenumerated powers not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. Marshall also held that while the states retained the power of taxation, "the constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof are supreme...they control the constitution and laws of the respective states, and cannot be controlled by them."

See: The Oyez Project, McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819)

Case Summary

John Barron was co-owner of a profitable wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. As the city developed and expanded, large amounts of sand accumulated in the harbor, making the water too shallow for large boats to dock at the wharf. He sued the city to recover a portion of his financial losses.

Question(s)

Does the Fifth Amendment deny the states as well as the national government the right to take private property for public use without justly compensating the property's owner?

Answer(s)

No. The Court announced its decision in this case without even hearing the arguments of the City of Baltimore. Writing for the unanimous Court, Chief Justice Marshall found that the limitations on government articulated in the Fifth Amendment were specifically intended to limit the powers of the national government. Citing the intent of the framers and the development of the Bill of Rights as an exclusive check on the government in Washington D.C., Marshall argued that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction in this case since the Fifth Amendment was not applicable to the states.

See: The Oyez Project, Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. 243 (1833)

Case Summary

The Compulsory Education Act of 1922 required parents or guardians to send children between the ages of eight and sixteen to public school in the district where the children resided. The Society of Sisters was an Oregon corporation which facilitated care for orphans, educated youths, and established and maintained academies or schools. This case was decided together with Society of Sisters v. Hill Military Academy.

Question(s)

Did the act violate the liberty of parents to direct the education of their children?

Answer(s)

Yes. The unanimous Court held that "the fundamental liberty upon which all governments in this Union repose excludes any general power of the State to standardize its children by forcing them to accept instruction from public teachers only."

See: The Oyez Project, Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510 (1925)

Case Summary

Griswold was the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut. Both she and the medical director for the League gave information, instruction, and other medical advice to married couples concerning birth control. Griswold and her colleague were convicted under a Connecticut law which criminalized the provision of counseling, and other medical treatment, to married persons for purposes of preventing conception.

Question(s)

Does the Constitution protect the right of marital privacy against state restrictions on a couple's ability to be counseled in the use of contraceptives?

Answer(s)

Yes. Though the Constitution does not explicitly protect a general right to privacy, the various guarantees within the Bill of Rights create penumbras, or zones, that establish a right to privacy. Together, the First, Third, Fourth, and Ninth Amendments, create a new constitutional right, the right to privacy in marital relations. The Connecticut statute conflicts with the exercise of this right and is therefore null and void.

See: The Oyez Project, Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)

Case Summary

In 1974, Congress passed amendments to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The purpose of the amendments was to regulate minimum wage and overtime pay for state and local government employees. The National League of Cities, as well as several states and cities, challenged the constitutionality of the amendments.

Question(s)

May Congress, acting under its commerce power, regulate the labor market of state employees, which the Tenth Amendment reserves to the states?

Answer(s)

No, Congress may not regulate the labor market of state employees. The Tenth Amendment prohibits Congress from enacting legislation which operates "to directly displace the States' freedom to structure integral operations in areas of traditional governmental functions." While the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause is "plenary," that power has constitutional limits. In this case, the exercise of the commerce power ran afoul of the Tenth Amendment which protects the states' traditional activities.

See: The Oyez Project, National League of Cities v. Usery, 426 U.S. 833 (1976)

Case Summary

The San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (SAMTA), the main provider of transportation in the San Antonio metropolitan area, claimed it was exempt from the minimum-wage and overtime requirements of the Fair Labor Standards Act. SAMTA argued that it was providing a "traditional" governmental function, which exempted it from federal controls according to the doctrine of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery (1976). Joe G. Garcia, an employee of SAMTA, brought suit for overtime pay under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Question(s)

Did principles of federalism make the San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority immune from the Fair Labor Standards Act?

Answer(s)

In a 5-to-4 decision, the Court held that the guiding principles of federalism established in National League of Cities v. Usery were unworkable and that SAMTA was subject to congressional legislation under the Commerce Clause. The Court found that rules based on the subjective determination of "integral" or "traditional" governmental functions provided little or no guidance in determining the boundaries of federal and state power. The Court argued that the structure of the federal system itself, rather than any "discrete limitations" on federal authority, protected state sovereignty.

See: The Oyez Project, Garcia v. San Antonio Metro. Transit Authority, 469 U.S. 528 (1985)

Case Summary

The Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 (CPPA) prohibits "any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture" that "is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct," and any sexually explicit image that is "advertised, promoted, presented, described, or distributed in such a manner that conveys the impression" it depicts "a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct." The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment trade association, and others filed suit, alleging that the "appears to be" and "conveys the impression" provisions are overbroad and vague and, thus, restrain works otherwise protected by the First Amendment. Reversing the district court, the court of appeals held the CPPA invalid on its face, finding it to be substantially overbroad because it bans materials that are neither obscene under Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, nor produced by the exploitation of real children as in New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747.

Question(s)

Does the Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996 abridge freedom of speech where it where it proscribes a significant universe of speech that is neither obscene under Miller v. California nor child pornography under New York v. Ferber?

Answer(s)

Yes. In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, the Court held that the two prohibitions described above are overbroad and unconstitutional. The Court found the CPPA to be inconsistent with Miller insofar as the CPPA cannot be read to prohibit obscenity, because it lacks the required link between its prohibitions and the affront to community standards prohibited by the obscenity definition. Moreover, the Court found the CPPA to have no support in Ferber since the CPPA prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production. Provisions of the CPPA cover "materials beyond the categories recognized in Ferber and Miller, and the reasons the Government offers in support of limiting the freedom of speech have no justification in our precedents or in the law of the First Amendment" and abridge "the freedom to engage in a substantial amount of lawful speech," wrote Justice Kennedy.

See: Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002),

Case Summary

For the first time in seventy years, the Court heard a case regarding the central meaning of the Second Amendment and its relation to gun control laws. After the District of Columbia passed legislation barring the registration of handguns, requiring licenses for all pistols, and mandating that all legal firearms must be kept unloaded and disassembled or trigger locked, a group of private gun-owners brought suit claiming the laws violated their Second Amendment right to bear arms. The federal trial court in Washington D.C. refused to grant the plaintiffs relief, holding that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, such as the National Guard, and not to private gun ownership. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit disagreed, voting two-to-one that the Second Amendment does in fact protect private gun owners such as the plaintiffs. Petitioners agreed with the trial court's decision that the Second Amendment applies only to militias, and further argued that (a) the Second Amendment should not apply to D.C. because it is a federal enclave rather than a state, and (b) that the D.C. legislation merely regulates, rather than prohibits, gun ownership. Respondents, although disagreeing on the merits, also urged the Court to review the case in order to clearly define the relationship between federal gun control laws and the Second Amendment.

Question(s)

Whether provisions of the D.C. code generally barring the registration of handguns, prohibiting carrying a pistol without a license, and requiring all lawful firearms to be kept unloaded and either disassembled or trigger locked violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?

Answer(s)

Yes. In a 5-4 decision, the Court held that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. The Court based its holding on the text of the Second Amendment, as well as applicable language in state constitutions adopted soon after the Second Amendment. Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the opinion of the Court. Justices John Paul Stevens and Stephen Breyer filed dissenting opinions, each joined by the other as well as Justices David Souter and Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Justice Stevens argued that the Second Amendment only protects the rights of individuals to bear arms as part of a well-regulated state militia, not for other purposes even if they are lawful. Justice Breyer agreed with Stevens' argument but also stated that even if possession were to be allowed for other reasons, any law regulating the use of firearms would have to be ""unreasonable or inappropriate"" to violate the Second Amendment. In Breyer's view, the D.C. laws at issue in this case were both reasonable and appropriate.

See: The Oyez Project, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008)

English translation of Magna Carta

Access the Material

Virginia Declaration of Rights

Access the Material

Madison's speech proposing a Bill of Rights and the text of the proposed rights.

Access the Material

The Bill of Rights as it was submitted to the states for ratification. It included a preamble and ten proposed amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is a declaration adopted by the United Nations General Assembly. The Declaration arose directly from the experience of World War II and represents the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are respectfully entitled. The International Bill of Human Rights consists of the UDHR, the International Covenant on Cultural, Economic and Social Rights, and the International Covenant on Political and Civil Rights and its two optional protocols. The General Assembly adopted the two detailed Covenants in 1966, and in 1976, after the Covenants had been ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations, the Bill took on the force of international law.

Access the Material

The Star Chamber was a court that heard criminal and civil cases against prominent Englishmen, who, it was believed, would not receive a fair trial in the regular courts. In 1641, it was abolished by Parliament with the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640, after controversial incidents with religious dissenters and having become known for its secrecy, misuse and abuse of power.

Access the Material

Act passed by the British Parliament in 1689 enumerating rights of British subjects and residents. A restating of the Declaration of Right presented to William and Mary a year prior, it guarantees the right to petition the monarch, bear arms for defense, and outlines some requirements for the monarch to seek consent of the people through Parliament.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: Federalist No. 84, titled, "Certain General and Miscellaneous Objections to the Constitution Considered and Answered," was written by Alexander Hamilton and presented the idea that a Bill of Rights was not a necessary component of the proposed Constitution. Hamilton argued that it could be interpreted to contain the only rights granted by law or used as specious justification to grant unreasonable rights.

Access the Material

James Madison originally submitted 17 amendments to become the Bill of RIghts. All were passed by the House of Representatives, but only 12 were passed by the Senate and the states ratified 10 of them. The first article was not ratified and the second would later be ratified in 1992 as the Twenty-seventh Amendment.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: Magna Carta, is an English legal charter, originally issued in 1215, the first document ever served to an English king by his subjects. Magna Carta required King John to proclaim certain rights, respect certain legal procedures, and accept that his will could be restricted by the law. It explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects and supported what became the writ of habeas corpus, allowing appeal against unlawful imprisonment. Magna Carta was arguably the most significant early influence on the extensive historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today in the much of the world.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: The Constitution of South Africa is the supreme law of the country of South Africa. It provides the legal foundation for the existence of the Republic of South Africa, sets out the rights and duties of the citizens of South Africa, and defines the structure of the Government of South Africa. The current Constitution of South Africa came into effect on 4 February 1997, replacing and repealing the Interim Constitution of 1993. Since its adoption, the Constitution has been amended sixteen times.

Access the Material

An airline passenger bill of rights would guarantee that certain conditions are met at various stages of airline travel. After several high-profile air travel mishaps, including stranded passengers and those stuck on grounded planes without adequate food and water, popular demand exists for additional federal regulation on air travel. H.R. 624 and S. 213 would amend title 49, United States Code, ensuring air passengers have access to necessary services while on a grounded air carrier.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: A patient's bill of rights is a statement of the rights to which patients are entitled as recipients of medical care. Typically, a statement articulates the positive rights which doctors and hospitals ought to provide patients, thereby providing information, offering fair treatment, and granting them autonomy over medical decisions. Medical care institutions and consumer advocacy groups have issued patients' bills of rights, and legislators have tried to enact mandates guaranteeing minimum standards in health care.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: The Massachusetts Body of Liberties was the first legal code to be instituted by European colonists in New England. The laws were established by the Massachusetts General Court in 1641 and include both positive and negative rights.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: The Petition of Right is a major English constitutional document, which sets out specific liberties of the subject that the king is prohibited from infringing. The Petition is most notable for its confirmation of the principles that taxes can be levied only by Parliament, that martial law may not be imposed in time of peace, and that prisoners must be able to challenge the legitimacy of their detentions through the writ of habeas corpus. Additionally, the Petition's ban on the billeting of troops is reflected in the Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Access the Material

From Wikipedia: In the United States, the Bill of Rights is the name by which the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution are known. They were introduced by James Madison to the First United States Congress in 1789 as a series of articles, and came into effect on December 15, 1791, when they had been ratified by three quarters of the states. It responded largely to Anti-Federalists who believed that ratifying the U.S. Constitution meant surrendering basic human rights of individuals.

Access the Material

The supreme law of the United States that provides the framework for the government. The Constitution outlines the nation's institutions of government and the most important rights of the people. The document was created in 1787 during the Philadelphia Convention. The government created by the Constitution took effect on March 4, 1789.

Access the Material