• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

To what extend are rights and liberties better protected in theory than in practice in the United States?

Extracts from this document...


To what extend are rights and liberties better protected in theory than in practice in the United States? When the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and the bill of Rights in the late 18th century, they wanted to devise a system in which government would be limited. Civil rights are positive acts of government designed to protect people against discriminatory treatment while civil liberties are those liberties that guarantee the protection of persons and property from the arbitrary of government officials. The US government has certainly adapted to the changes that have taken place in US society, to which racial and ethnic minorities can look to safeguard their rights and liberties. The civil rights movement that grew out of the 1950s had seen the passage of constitutional amendments guaranteeing rights for African-Americans which helped removed the worst elements of racial discrimination in the North. However, laws in many states especially in the Deep South meant that these rights were not a reality for most blacks. The Supreme Court had perpetuate the segregated South with its doctrine of 'separate but equal' in its decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). This meant that whether in schools, housing, job recruitment, public transport or leisure facilities, blacks were still 'separate but equal', indicating that separation of the races was fine which implies that rights are better protected in theory than in practice. ...read more.


As such, rights and liberties are seen to be well protected in theory as well as in practice. Despite that, many regarded 'set asides' and quotas' as unfair to those of the majority group and patronising to those of the minority. This can be closely associated with the 1978 Supreme Court of Regents of the University of California v. Bakke which concerned a white medical student, Allan Bakke, who had been denied a place at the University of California's Medical School, despite the fact that lesser qualified minority students were admitted. Other landmark cases included Gratz v. Bollinger (2003) where the court ruled that the University of Michigan's affirmative action based admissions programme for its undergraduate students was unconstitutional because it was too 'mechanistic' as all black, Hispanic, and American-Indian applicants were automatically awarded 20 of the 150 points required for admission. Also, in Parents Involved in Community Schools Inc. V. Seattle School District and Meredith v. Jefferson County (Kentucky) Board of Education, the court struck down affirmative action programmes in Washington state and Kentucky because they assigned students to public schools solely for the purpose of achieving racial balance. For that reasons, we can see that advantage or preference for one group leads inevitably to disadvantage for another group which is also known as 'reverse discrimination'. ...read more.


Therefore, women's rights and liberties are limited by such ruling. In the wake of 9/11, as the United States is faced with national emergency, the President's powers are normally significantly greater than in the normal course of events. For example, George W.Bush was able to launch the attacks on Afghanistan as an emergency act of self-defence, without a formal declaration of war by Congress. The USA Patriot Bill, a legislation that was passed had authorised the FBI to access computer files and e-mails, as well as allowing the arrest and holding of terrorist prisoners for seven days without charge. In Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, the court ruled that Yaser Esam Hamdi, a Louisiana-born Saudi citizen who had been held in isolation for nearly three tears, had been denied due process of law. Furthermore, in the case of Hamdam v. Rumsfeld (2006) the court declared that the military commissions set up by President George W.Bush to try people held at Guantanamo Bay was unconstitutional nonetheless, in 2008 in the case of Boumediene v. Bush, the court held that the procedures set up by the Bush Administration and Congress following the Hamdam decision in 2006 were inadequate to ensure that the detainees received their day in court. As a result, we can witness that rights and liberties has been significantly limited and impeded upon during times of national crisis. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. To what extent has the Constitution protected civil liberties in America?

    The protection by the Supreme Court is the third way that the Americans civil liberties are at least to some extent protected. As the most powerful judicial body in the whole country, it has the power of judicial review and so can declare the actions of president, congress or state unconstitutional.

  2. Has the US Constituion Protected Individual Liberties?

    On the other hand however, there have been many instances when the Bill of Rights has failed to safeguard the individual rights of US citizens. For example, the atrocities, fear and violence that has stemmed from 'the right to bear arms' which is guaranteed in the second amendment.

  1. Discuss the view that a Bill of rights alone is insufficient to protect rights ...

    Even when laws were passed that seemingly sought to impose actual civil rights and liberties such as in the case of 'Brown v Board of Education' they were manipulated in such a way that reflected the persistent racist conservative views of the elite, who were more fearful of upsetting Southern

  2. Are Civil Liberties and rights better Protected In the US or UK?

    In which didn?t protect the civil rights and liberties due to the bias of the judge and judges supporting government rule. This is important as it shows that the defendant?s civil liberties and right weren?t properly protected due to the influences inserted by the government.

  1. Ethnic minorities in the USA

    He opposed this on moral and religious grounds, as did many of his supporters. There are also checks and balances by both Congress and the Supreme Court on the powers of the President. Congress can overturn a Presidential veto if it has a two-thirds majority in both Houses.

  2. Politics and Satire. In the United States the First Amendment protects satirists. There ...

    The political cartoon was a way that politicians could defame their rivals. During the presidency of Andrew Jackson, the Whig party published a cartoon depicting President Jackson wearing a crown and cape while holding a scepter. The caption read ?King Andrew.? This depiction helped to give Jackson the reputation of

  1. How effective has the US been at defending civil liberties at a time of ...

    Although in doing so, threatening civil liberties. However many people see this as being acceptable as long as it is temporary, just as in the Suspension Clause it says habeas corpus may be suspended but not completely erased. A more recent example of this was during the war with Japan, specifically after Pearl Harbour.

  2. Power in America. The idea that the rich run America has been encompassed in ...

    In the United States, the means of production are obviously held by those who have money. However, socialism differs from the elite theory because it insists that control over the means of the production is the only source of power.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work