17 de Septiembre Celebrando 225 años con nuestra Constitución

Presentación del tema: "17 de Septiembre Celebrando 225 años con nuestra Constitución"— Transcripción de la presentación:

1 17 de Septiembre Celebrando 225 años con nuestra Constitución
Día de la Constitución 17 de Septiembre Celebrando 225 años con nuestra Constitución Coordinated by the ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties

2 Tinker v. Des Moines “Los derechos de la Primera Enmienda, puestos en el contexto escolar, son aplicables a maestros y alumnos. No se puede decir que alumnos o maestros se deshacen de sus derechos de libertad de expresión al poner pie en la escuela.” A pesar de que la decisión de Tinker reconoce que los alumnos cuentan con derecho de libertad de expresión en la escuela, la corte también decidió que tus derechos de libertad de expresión pueden ser limitados cuando lo que dices “interrumpe el trabajo escolar o causa desorden e invasión de los derechos de los demás.” Tinker v. Des Moines (1969) was a U.S. Supreme Court case that resulted in a decision defining the constitutional rights of students in U.S. public schools. The Tinker test is still used by courts today to determine whether a school’s disciplinary actions violate students’ First Amendment rights. The Tinker Test says that school officials may only prohibit student speech that causes, or reasonably could be expected to cause, material and substantial disruption of the school’s operations or that “invades” the rights of others. The most important implication of this test is that school officials may not punish or prohibit speech merely because a disagreement of the ideas expressed. Nor may they act to suppress or punish speech because of a generalized fear of disruption. They may, however, enforce reasonable regulations limiting the time, place and manner of student expression as long as the regulations are necessary for the school to perform its educational function. THIS JUST IN: On September 2, 2008, the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of a federal judge in finding that the Watson Chapel School District (WCSD) in Little Rock, Arkansas, violated the First Amendment rights of students when they disciplined them for wearing black armbands to protest the student apparel policy. In October 2006 the ACLU of Arkansas filed suit against WCSD alleging the district violated the free speech rights of those students and a federal judge agreed. The school district appealed to the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals, and that Court upheld the lower court’s ruling. The Court said that by winning this lawsuit, the student plaintiffs did something “that benefitted all of the students in the school” and “vindicated” students’ right to free speech.

3 Primera Enmienda Libertad de la Prensa Libertad de expresión
Libertad de Religión Derecho de apelación Derecho de asamblea Often, the “First Amendment” is used as short hand for freedom of speech or freedom of expression. But, the First Amendment protects several rights that are crucial to our freedom of conscience and ability to express our thoughts and concerns, particularly to government. 1st Amendment Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

4 Cuarta Enmienda  Se garantiza el derecho de la gente a estar seguras en su persona, en la inviolabilidad del domicilio, papeles privados y efectos personales contra intromisiones del gobierno. No se permitirá a los jueces autorizar la entrada a domicilios privados que no estén fundadas en causa probable.

5 Redada de Stratford High School
The Stratford High School raid can be used to discuss the meaning of the 4th Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches and the requirement that warrants “particularly describ[e]” what is to be searched. Arguments can be made on both sides as to what would justify this kind of raid and search. The November 5, 2003 police raid of Stratford High School was recorded by both the school’s surveillance cameras and a police camera.  The tapes show students as young as 14 forced to the ground in handcuffs as officers in SWAT team uniforms and bulletproof vests aim guns at their heads and lead a drug dog to tear through their book bags. The ACLU represents 20 of the nearly 150 students caught up in the raid. The raid was initiated by the school’s principal at the time, George McCrackin, who resigned shortly after the tapes surfaced on national television. The raid was authorized based on the principal’s suspicion that a single student was dealing marijuana. The raid was carried out despite the suspected student being absent at the time.  No drugs or weapons were found during the raid and no charges were filed. Following the raid, the ACLU brought a lawsuit on behalf of students’ families charging police and school officials with violating the students’ right to be free from unlawful search and seizure and use of excessive force.  The lawsuit demanded a court order declaring the raid unconstitutional and blocking the future use of such tactics, as well as damages on behalf of the students. In addition to recognizing students’ rights to be free from unconstitutional search and seizure and restricting police tactics, the settlement establishes a $1.6 million dollar fund to compensate the students and help cover medical and counseling costs from the incident. Learn more at: Copyright All Rights Reserved

6 Redada de Stratford High School
Basándose en rumores de que un alumno estaba vendiendo drogas, la policía llevo a cabo una redada de la preparatoria Stratford, localizada en Goose Creek, en Carolina del Sur. Esto sucedió en el 2003, alrededor de las 6:45 am. La redada fue grabada por las cámaras de seguridad de la escuela. Hubo alumnos presentes, unos hasta de 14 años, que fueron forzados a tirarse al suelo con pistolas apuntadas a ellos, y se les ordeno poner sus manos en la cabeza mientras perros policiacos husmeaban sus pertenencias. La redada fue llevada a cabo a pesar de que el alumno al que buscaban no estaba presente. No se encontraron drogas o armas durante la redada y no se presentaron cargos. Although this case is not exclusively about searches at school, students may ask about the legality of searches and locker searches. In New Jersey v. T.L.O. (1985), the Supreme Court held that school officials need only meet the lower reasonable suspicion standard to conduct searches of students. The Court found in this case that the information obtained by school officials (including rolling papers in the student’s purse) made it reasonable for them to search the purse more thoroughly. The Court explained that a search and seizure is reasonable only if it is “justified at its inception” and “reasonable in its scope.” Id. at 341. The Court defined the test as follows: [A] search of a student by a teacher or other school official will be "justified at its inception" when there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that the search will turn up evidence that the student has violated or is violating either the law or the rules of the school. Such a search will be permissible in its scope when the measures adopted are reasonably related to the objectives of the search and not excessively intrusive in light of the age and sex of the student and the nature of the infraction.” Beyond that rule, the law varies. Students must consider any desk or locker, or any other place provided by the school for their belongings, to be searchable without a warrant. Students should not put anything in these places that they would not want anyone to find or see. A school might be able to conduct a search of locker or desk without a warrant, consent by the student, or even any particular suspicion, so long as there is a written policy that allows such searches and students are informed in writing that an inspection may occur. If a school does not have such a stated policy, failing a warrant or a student's consent, the search must be based on reasonable suspicion. Courts have upheld schools’ use of drug-sniffing dogs to search all school lockers. These searches have been upheld on the grounds that the search is relatively unintrusive and the goal of keeping drugs out of school is very important. However, many courts have distinguished between the use of dogs to sniff lockers and the use of dogs to sniff the individual. While the former has generally been allowed, the latter has not.

7 Octava Enmienda No castigos crueles e inusuales No multas excesivas
In Wilkerson v. Utah, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that death by firing squad was NOT cruel and unusual punishment under the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 1958- In Trop v. Dulles, the Court found it was unconstitutional for the government to cancel the citizenship of a U.S. citizen as a punishment. Trop, a U.S. citizen and former U.S. soldier, was denied a passport based on a prior charge for deserting the army. 1980- In Rummel v. Estelle, the Court upheld a life sentence with the possibility of parole for fraud crimes totaling $230. 1991- In Harmelin v. Michigan, the Court ruled that the Eighth Amendment's Cruel and Unusual Clause allowed a state to impose a life sentence without the possibility of parole for the possession of 672 grams of cocaine. 2003- In Lockyer v. Andrade, the Court decided that no "clearly established" law held that a three-strikes sentence was cruel and unusual punishment, the 50-years-to-life sentence imposed in this case (for shoplifting videotapes as the 3rd offense) was not cruel and unusual punishment. Copyright © 2008 Warner Bros All Rights Reserved

8 Castigos Crueles e Inusuales =
Furman v. Georgia (1972) Castigos Crueles e Inusuales = Un castigo que por su severidad degrada la dignidad humana (tortura) Obviamente infligido de manera arbitraria Clara y completamente rechazado por la sociedad Completamente innecesario Furman v. Georgia (1972), 5-4, held that the death penalty was cruel and unusual because it was implemented in a random and capricious fashion, discriminating against blacks and the poor. Two of the five justices held that the death penalty was itself cruel and unusual. Four years latter in Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court held that changes to the capital punishment laws had fixed the 8th Amendment problems with the death penalty. Those changes included bifurcated trials in which guilt and sentence were determined separately and greater review by appellate courts. In recent years, the Supreme Court has held that it is unconstitutional to execute people who are mentally retarded (Atkins v. Virginia, 2002) or who were under 18 years old at the time they committed the crime (Roper v. Simmons, 2005. Today, although popular support for the death penalty remains relatively high (about 65% for murders), support has declined as the debate over the death penalty continues, fueled by DNA evidence of actual innocence of people sentenced to death, the cost of prosecuting death penalty cases compared to life sentence cases, and questions of fairness for poor people and people of color. Opinion has shifted against the belief that the death penalty deters crime. For more info, see

9 Fotografía de una simulación de tortura
Discussion question: Should water-boarding count as cruel and unusual punishment? In 2008, the CIA admitted it had used water-boarding on three detainees suspected of being Al-Quaeda terrorists (Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, Abu Zudbaydah, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri) in 2002 and News stories citing CIA insiders say that water-boarding was one of several “enhanced interrogation techniques” being used on detainees. Other reports say the CIA later banned the use of water-boarding. In July 2007, the President signed an executive order banning torture in the interrogation of detainees, but Human Rights Watch expressed dismay that the order was not clear enough to end practices like water-boarding. For more information, see Does it matter that the detention and interrogation took place outside the U.S. and to a non-U.S. citizen? In Rasul v. Bush (2004), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that U.S. courts do not have jurisdiction over habeas corpus petitions for foreign national detainees at Guantanamo, which is part of Cuba but over which the U.S. has control. Habeas jurisdiction, at least, depends on the degree of control but applies to "all ... dominions under the sovereign's control” and regardless of citizenship. Copyright © 2008 NY Times All Rights Reserved Photo of Protestors Simulating Water-boarding.

10 Catorceava Enmienda  Ningún estado podrá negar a cualquier persona dentro de su jurisdicción la protección de la ley. 14TH Amendment, Section 1 All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

11 Loving v. Virginia En 1958 era un crimen en el estado de Virginia y 15 otros el que una persona blanca se casara con una persona Afro-Americana. Richard y Mildred Loving se casaron en Washington D.C. y decidieron tratar de regresar a su estado natal de Virginia. Al llegar fueron arrestados y sentenciados a pasar un año encarcelados si es que querían permanecer en Virginia. La ACLU decidió representarlos. En 1967 la Suprema Corte decidió de manera unánime que la ley no era constitucional.

12 Historia del Voto – Edición Especial
Se adopta la Constitución. Solamente se le es permitió el voto a hombres blancos terratenientes Se elimina el prerrequisito religioso. Los prerrequisitos religiosos para poder votar son eliminad Examen de Alfabetismo son impuestos. Connecticut adopta exámenes de alfabetismo para poder votar. Esta es una manera en la que se trata de discriminar en contra de inmigrantes Irlandeses. 1870 – 15th Enmienda: Le otorga el derecho de votar a ex esclavos y protege el derecho de votar de todos los ciudadanos masculinos sin importar su etnicidad. El Estado de Florida Impone un Impuesto de Urnas. Diez estados sureños siguen el ejemplo impuesto por Florida. Esto es hecho para prevenir que votantes pobres y Afro-Americanos. The “Right to Vote” can be a good way to discuss: the people left out of the Constitution at the time of its adoption; the process for amending the Constitution (see also Slide 20); and the role of the states and legislation in providing for our rights. There is in fact no “right to vote” as such in the Constitution, only a requirement that each state provide for a republican form of government. As such, who has the “right to vote” has always been determined by the states. However, Constitutional amendments have specified that the right to vote cannot be denied to people based on “race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (15th Amendment, 1870); “sex” (19th Amendment, 1920); “failure to pay any poll tax or other tax” (24th Amendment, 1964); age for those “citizens who are eighteen years of age or older” (26th Amendment, 1971). The National Voting Rights Act of 1965 is landmark legislation that expanded protections for the right to vote. Specifically, the law: Prohibits literacy tests as a condition of registering to vote; Establishes federal government oversight of how states administer elections; and Requires publication of ballots in other languages when requested by voters.

13 1920 - 19ª Enmienda es Adoptada garantiza el derecho al voto de la mujer.
Acta de Ciudadanía Indígena otorga el derecho de ciudadanía y del voto en elecciones federales a personas indígenas. Comisión de los Derechos Civiles - Se establece esta comisión para investigar actos de discriminación al votante. Se adopta la 24ª Enmienda esta enmienda prohíbe el Impuesto de las Urnas. Todos los ciudadanos tienen el derecho a votar a pesar de su inhabilidad de pagar el impuesto. ª Enmienda Adoptada. Establece 18 años como la edad oficial para poder votar. Dunn vs Blimstein. La Suprema Corte declara que los prerrequisitos de residencia para votar en elecciones estatales y locales son inconstitucionales y sugiere que un periodo de 30 días es suficiente. 15th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. 19th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. 24th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax. 26th Amendment The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

14 Proceso Legal: Asegurando Imparcialidad
5ª Enmienda– Nadie puede ser llamado a responder contra la misma acusación criminal dos veces.  No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. Sixth Amendment– Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury Right to counsel Right to obtain witnesses in your favor Right to confront witnesses and accusers Seventh Amendment— Right to a trial by jury in civil cases Juries decide what the facts were Several Amendments protect Due Process rights. It may help students to understand that due process is intended to protect fairness. 5th Amendment No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 6th Amendment In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted wit the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense. 7th Amendment In Suites at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed $20 dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in an Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

15 Limites del Poder del Gobierno
Otros Derechos que Protegen a la Gente del Poder Gubernamental 2º el derecho de la gente de tener armas no será infringido. 3º los soldados no serán alojados en ninguna casa privada. 9º La enumeración de ciertos derechos en la Constitución no deberá ser interpretado para negar otros derechos retenidos por la gente. 10º Otros poderes no explícitamente mencionados están reservados para los Estados o la gente. Generally, the Articles of the Constitution define the power and authority of the federal branches of government, and the Bill of Rights defines the rights of the people or the limits on government power. 2nd amendment A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. 3rd amendment No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. 9th amendment The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. 10th amendment The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively; or to the people.