Substantive Law Study Support

Questions for Analysis and Responses

1. Reread the facts in Living with the Constitution at the beginning of the chapter.

Orland wishes to sue for damages suffered as a result of a violation of his Constitutional rights. Which provisions, if any, of the Constitution were violated by the city police? Which, if any, were violated by Orland’s acquaintance?
Because the city police are agents of the state, the Fourteenth Amendment applies. The Court incorporated the rights found in the Fourth and Sixth Amendments. Here, Orland can argue that he is the victim of an illegal seizure (Fourth Amendment) and was denied his right to counsel, to be informed of the charges against him, and, because he was held so long without a hearing, his right to a speedy trial. Because his acquaintance is not an agent of the state, there is no constitutional violation in the friend’s lies to the police.

2. Answer the following questions regarding the case Dobbert v. Florida.

a. Why was the Florida law under which Dobbert was eventually sentenced to die not ex post facto?
The Court concluded that the petitioner had not shown the deprivation of any federal constitutional right and affirmed the judgment of the Florida Supreme Court. In addition, the Court concluded that the changes in the law were procedural, and a procedural change is not ex post fact.
b. Why did Justice Stevens dissent?

Justice Stevens believed that, even though there was a death penalty statute in existence at the time of the crime, the fact that it was declared unconstitutional meant that, as a matter of Florida law, the crime committed by the petitioner was not a capital offense. It was undisputed, therefore, that a law passed after the offense was the source of Florida’s power to put the petitioner to death. He believed that the test set forth in Lindsey v. Washington, 301 U.S. 397, 401, controlled: “The Constitution forbids the application of any new punitive measure to a crime already consummated, to the detriment or material disadvantage of the wrongdoer.”

3. Answer the following questions regarding the case of Barron v. Baltimore.

a. According to Chief Justice Marshall, why was the Constitution established?
The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government, and not for the government of the individual states.

b. If citizens want protection from their states, what does the Court say they should do? In cases where parties claim that a state violated their rights, they need to seek remedies within the state courts. The Court also recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment contains provisions that are instrumental in the development of federal protection against state deprivation of civil rights.

4. Answer the following questions regarding Twining v. New Jersey.

a. What is the historical origin of the term “due process”?

It comes from the Magna Carta, where it is referred to as the “law of the land.”

b. According to the opinion, how should the Court determine what due process means in specific cases?
What is due process of law should be ascertained by an examination of those settled usages and modes of proceedings existing in the common and statute law of England before the emigration of our ancestors; it has been shown not to have been unsuited to their civil and political condition by having been acted on by them after the settlement of this country.
c. What does the Court say the greatest security for liberty and justice is?

The power of the people of the states to make and alter their laws at pleasure is the greatest security for liberty and justice.

5. Why did the Court find that the Interstate Commerce Clause allowed Congress to enact a law that protected the civil rights of individuals in Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, but did not allow the enactment of the law in United States v. Morrison?

The most important difference seems to be the connection of the law to economic activity. In Heart of Atlanta, the civil rights act in question dealt with economic activity of the hotel—discrimination in renting and serving minorities. In Morrison, the law had nothing to do with economic activity.

6. Why did the Court in Saenz v. Roe find that California’s welfare laws violated the privileges and immunities clause?
The Court found that §11450.03 violated §1 of the Fourteenth Amendment because it enacted a durational residency requirement intended to inhibit the migration of needy persons into California. The right of newly arrived citizens to the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by other citizens of California is plainly identified in the Privileges and Immunities Clause and was the issue in this case.