Manchester Voices Indivisible to present A Timely Talk About Our Rights to Protection and Due Process
The inscription “Equal Justice Under Law” as seen on the frieze of the United States Supreme Court building. Photo credit: Matt H. Wade/CC-BY-SA-3.0, Wikipedia.
submitted by Linda Knox and Teresa Killeen, Manchester Voices Indivisible
Manchester Voices Indivisible presents A Timely Talk about Our Rights to Protection and Due Process with Washtenaw County court attorney Teresa Killeen on Tuesday, March 17, 6:30pm–8pm, at the Kingsley-Jenter House, 302 E Main St. Manchester Mirror publisher Fritz Swanson will moderate the open discussion.
It all started with the Magna Carta.
You remember this from high school, right? Springtime in London, 1215 AD. Nobles violently rebel over King John’s high taxes, senseless wars, and abuse of feudal law. One sunny day in June, outmanned and outmaneuvered at Runneymede, John reluctantly puts his seal on a charter that includes these resonant clauses:
39. No free-man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land. 40. To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.
Five hundred and seventy-four years later (in 1789) our founders included those concepts in the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution. And, another 79 years later (in 1868), in the Fourteenth Amendment. Killeen will discuss how courts in America have historically interpreted nuances of these concepts, especially in the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments—and how they are being interpreted today.
The Fourth Amendment
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by an Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
The Fourth Amendment is characterized as the “right to be left alone.” We are protected against government intrusion that is not reasonable (there is “probable cause” for an intrusion) and is not specific (a warrant describes what is being searched for).
Courts are constantly interpreting the law to maintain a balance between the right of the individual to privacy and the right of the public to be safe against criminal activities. Words that have been interpreted and reinterpreted are “searches” and “seizures.” There are many, many kinds of searches today, for instance: “stop-and-frisk;” airport searches; sobriety checkpoints; consent searches; school searches; drug testing; plain view; incident to a lawful arrest; exigent circumstances; “hot pursuit”; and automobile searches. Without rigorous enforcement of Fourth Amendment protections, each is an opportunity for abuse by law enforcement.
Courts are also asked to define “unreasonable.” What can be a “probable cause,” providing a reason, or justification, to intrude on an individual? Recently, the Supreme Court has added “speaks English with an accent” as one point of evidence that law enforcement agents can use to support probable cause to search or seize an individual. Will this most recent addition stand the test of time? How is it “reasonable”?
Fourteenth 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.”
Section 5: “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Passed in 1866 and ratified in 1868, the 14th amendment made former slaves full citizens and extended to them the rights and protections of citizenship in every state. But its terms, specifically “due process” and “equal protection,” have become the most litigated constitutional issues in the nation.
The interpretation of “equal protection,” especially, vacillates with social changes and changes to the make-up of the Supreme Court. In recent history, it has been used to address gender discrimination, racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, the rights of aliens, voting rights, and apportionment (fair allocation).
Attorney Killeen’s talk will consider: Are some current government actions violating our rights to protection and due process? What is the remedy for violations? Are the remedies sufficient? Discuss the loosened requirements for probable cause for searches and seizures, the end of temporary protected status for over 300,000 Venezuelans, fast deportations for certain individuals without notice, as well as an executive order that aims to end birthright citizenship for children born in the United States to undocumented parents or those with temporary legal status—which will be considered by the Supreme Court this April. Is there recourse available without a change in the Supreme Court? How are we changing, or being changed, as a nation?
This presentation is part of Manchester Voices Indivisible’s Manchester Talks! series. One of over 2,500 local Indivisible groups, Manchester Voices is peaceful, non-partisan, and dedicated to building a better democracy, starting in our own community. Contact Info@Manchester-Voices-Indivisible.org.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login