From the mid-twentieth century, many civil rights advocates came to believe that ‘equality of opportunity’ would not in itself guarantee equality for minority groups. They would only have rights in theory, but not in practice. Only ‘equality of results’ would truly deliver equality for racial and ethnic minorities. Hence, the affirmative action programmes were introduced. This entails giving the members of a previously disadvantage minority group a head start in such areas as higher education and employment. President Kennedy also created the Equal Employment Opportunity Council in March 1961 which ensures that hiring and employment practices would be free from racial bias. Therefore, this leads to greater levels of diversity and in the most effective way, delivering equality of opportunity. For example, between 1960 and 1995, the percentage of blacks aged 25-29 who graduated from university rose from 5% to 15%. 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’. This ultimately means that rights and liberties are not protected well enough in practice as it can lead minorities to be admitted to courses or given jobs for which they are ill-equipped to cope.
As it stands today, American women have the legal right to obtain an abortion in all 50 states, through all nine months of pregnancy, for virtually any reason at all. This has been true since January of 1973 when the Supreme Court declared that autonomous abortion rights are built into the Constitution, and that any legal barriers which prevent mothers from aborting their children are unconstitutional. This ruling was arrived at on the premise that the and, according to legal precedent established during the 1960's, guarantees a woman's "right to privacy", a right that extends even to abortion. An example of such would be Roe v. Wade (1973) where the court struck down a Texas state law forbidding abortion. This highlights that the rights and liberties of women are well protected in theory and in practice.
In spite of this, women’s rights and liberties regarding abortion is slowly fading away in cases such as the (1989) whereby the court upheld a state law of Missouri forbidding the involvement of any ‘public employee’ or ‘public facility’ in the performance of an abortion ‘not necessary to save the life of the mother’. Additionally, in 1990, two cases and ruled that states requiring parental consent before a minor could have an abortion must allow for a judicial bypass. Also, the Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey (1992) meant that a married woman seeking an abortion is to receive counselling on the risks and alternatives and to wait 24 hours after receiving counselling. Moreover, in Gonzales v. Carhart (2007), the court upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act passed by Congress in2003 hence declaring that a specific abortion procedure could be banned and made no exception for the health of the woman. 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.