Procedural Limitations

Throughout history, society has pushed the envelope with civil liberties and civil rights by tackling Supreme Court decisions. From the decision to incorporate the Bill of Rights- i.e the Bill of Liberties- to the need to eradicate the disparity of African Americans and women, America’s citizens have fought for equality since the birth of the United States.
Civil liberties, as denoted in the Bill of Rights, had limited the government’s actions by providing “freedoms from” (Professor Krieger) the government. Because the government could not take away the people’s rights, the Bill of Rights was a list of “thou shalt nots,” which “limit[ed] its [the government’s] jurisdiction” (Lowi pg.107). A famous substantive limitation, or a restriction

against what Congress could do, was, and is, the establishment clause, or the separation between Church and State. As the first component of the First Amendment, the establishment clause impedes the government’s ability from establishing a national Church; consequently, due to religious persecution in England in the 1700’s, the establishment clause serves to protect the citizens from the possible tyranny of religion by permitting the accommodation of all religions through assistance and by not allowing the government to show “no favoritism” (pg 116). Therefore, the United States refers to God on “U.S. currency” (pg. 117) and during the Pledge of Allegiance, which contains the phrase “under God” (pg. 117); however, a notion originally developed by Thomas Jefferson, “wall of separation” (pg. 116), had, and is, a pertinent part of the establishment clause, dictating that the church and state must have a boundary, which cannot be “breached by the government” (pg.116).
Analogous to the establishment clause, an individual accused of a crime, or an individual brought to court as a witness, is entitled to “due process of law.” Furthermore, although the government is free to deem certain actions as crimes and arrest perpetrators of criminal behavior, it faces a procedural restraint, or the restriction of the etiquette behind its actions- “due process” of law preserves the legal rights of the accused.

Subsequently, one of the main components of the procedural limitation is innocent until proven guilty, which brings about the right to a Grand Jury- a panel that determines whether or not there is a need to go to trial. As a result, a guilty verdict in criminal cases is determined with evidence that is sufficient and that must be proved “‘beyond a reasonable doubt’” (pg.131), so there is an immense need to increase the chances for the respect of “reasonable doubt” (pg.

131).
One of the other renowned procedural limitations is the Fourth Amendment, which prevents “improper searches and seizures” (pg. 131). An amendment that serves to protect the citizens’ privacy from government invasions, the Fourth Amendment establishes that any evidence retrieved without a warrant is inadmissible in a court of law, or otherwise referred to as the exclusionary rule. Subsequently, in 1961, Mapp v. Ohio, Dollree (Dolly) Mapp was not charged with illegal possession of “obscene materials” (pg. 132) that Ohio had previously banned due to the police’s inability to provide a warrant; as a result, Mapp could not be committed due to the obtainment of illegal evidence. Therefore, criminals can walk free or be charged if the Court clearly determines the “nature and quality of the intrusion” (pg. 132). Similarly, dog-use for police search for drugs in cars requires a warrant, because utilizing trained dogs accounts for only suspicion, rather than facts, which does not involve public-safety.
Civil rights, conversely, are the “freedoms[s] to” (Professor Krieger) act, so the government “does something to protect” (Professor Krieger) the rights of its citizens. Therefore, there is a set of standards that determines societal treatment with respect to collective decisions, and certain questions must be answered: Who? What? How much?. The right to vote, a political right and a right that had changed countless of times, permits citizens 18 years old and over to vote; however, states can have other requirements for voting- i.e a photo ID, no ex-felons, or whether voting can be “exercised equally” (pg. 149). For example, in 1787, Catholics and Jews were restrained from voting due to their religions, and when the United States was founded, only wealthy, white, male property-owners could vote; women could not vote until the 1900’s- the Nineteenth Amendment in 1919 allowed women to vote in “federal elections” (pg. 156). Consequently, the Naturalization Act of 1790 granted “citizenship to immigrants” (pg. 149), which in the 21st century, allows legal immigrants to become citizens through naturalization; thus, any legal immigrant residing in the United States for five years or more can become a legal residents if he or she can read, write, and speak in English and knows American history.
Apart from the right to vote, there are other rights that are governed by “economic and civil liberties” (pg. 151). Individuals with disabilities were a controversial topic that arose in the 1970’s, which concerned how people should be treated in society. An initiative first taken when using other groups as precedents, the fight for rights for the disabled began during the Rehabilitation Act in 1973, a law that forbade discrimination against people with disabilities. Therefore, the law engendered a demand for rights and equality that resulted in the creation of the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund, which utilized NAACP’s Legal Defense Fund as its precedent. The movement, becoming immensely widespread, brought about the Disabilities Act (ADA) in 1990: people with disabilities were given equal employment rights and “access to public business” (pg. 176). Such a feat marked the development of easier access in businesses and public places through the construction of “ramps, elevators, and other devices” (pg. 176) that met the needed requirements.
The fight for equal civil rights has always been an ongoing battle in America. A common battle for equality was providing education for women. Throughout history, woman experienced “unequal access to education” (pg. 166), and during the nineteenth century, women were accepted into a limited number of colleges and professional schools; consequently, top tier schools like Harvard and Yale also prevented females from attending in the 1960’s, and schools that provided female admittance limited opportunities in sports and clubs for women. However, the Civil Rights Act of 1965 marked the first possible solution, and the Education Act of 1972, whose Title IX forbade gender discrimination, allowed women to equally access education. Unfortunately, the Education Act of 1972 was not as proactive, for it resulted in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools (1992), due to Title IX violations, which the Supreme Court decided to alleviate with compensation. Two years later, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights complained about a lack of athletic program for women, thus causing colleges to add additional programs for women.
Similarly, the plethora of racial discrimination was as devastating as gender discrimination.

African Americans have been fighting for equality since the pre-Civil War era. Although the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments became realities, segregation and exclusion of African Americans from public places were the realities throughout the 1800’s and 1900’s. The Civil Rights Act of 1875, or the “Force Act” (pg. 157), only allowed the government to protect African Americans from being excluded by “public officials of state and local governments” (pg. 157), not private businesses. Thus, Plessy v. Ferguson in 1896 polarized the nation, for the case declared the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional and did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s “equal protection of the laws” (pg. 158). As long as the accommodations for both races were equal, separating various public spaces was also equal; however, in 1954 “separate but equal” was reversed with Brown v Board of Education. Brown v. Board of Education focused on Oliver Brown’s fight for his daughter, Linda, to attend an “all-white Summer School, which was closer to home” (pg. 160). When the school refused to admit his daughter, Brown took his fight to the NAACP and then took his fight to the Supreme Court; subsequently, the Court decided on the case with the “consequences of segregation” (pg. 160), which concerned a lack of “equal educational opportunities” (pg. 160). As a result, the Court declared Plessy v.

Ferguson unconstitutional and declared segregation as “inherently unequal” (pg. 160). The decision, thus, permitted the government to intervene in state and local governments’ regulations that it considered to be strict.