7 min read•february 11, 2023
Annika Tekumulla
Riya Patel
Annika Tekumulla
Riya Patel
is the process by which the applies the provisions of the (which are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) to the states through the of the . Before the process, the was only applicable to the federal government and not the states. Through , the has incorporated many of the provisions of the , such as the right to free speech, religion, and bear arms, and applied them to the states, thereby providing broader protection of individual rights against state governments. This process has been ongoing and the continues to evaluate which provisions of the should be incorporated and how they should be applied to the states.
works through the legal process of judicial review, in which the evaluates whether a particular law or government action complies with the Constitution. In the context of , the has the power to determine whether a particular provision of the should be applied to the states.
When a person challenges a state law or action as violating their constitutional rights, the will apply a level of scrutiny to determine whether the law or action complies with the of the . If the determines that the law or action violates a provision of the that has been incorporated, it will strike down the law or action as unconstitutional.
The process has been ongoing, with the gradually incorporating more provisions of the over time. The Court considers various factors when evaluating whether to incorporate a provision, such as the historical background and significance of the provision, the practical importance of the right in question, and the nature of the interests involved.
In summary, works through the legal process of judicial review, in which the applies the provisions of the to the states through the of the , and determines whether state laws or actions comply with the Constitution.
An example of this is the court case of (2010). McDonald v. Chicago (2010) was a landmark case that dealt with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the extent to which that right could be regulated by states and cities. The plaintiff, Otis McDonald, was a resident of Chicago who claimed that the city's strict gun control laws violated his right to keep and bear arms. The ultimately held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the of the through the 's . The decision limited the power of states and cities to regulate firearms and ensured that the individual right to bear arms was protected against government infringement.
Another historic court case related to is (1961). This case ruled that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in court against the accused. The held that evidence collected from an unlawful search must be excluded from trial. This ruling incorporated the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy using the of the 14th Amendment.
Other important cases involving include:
(1925): The first applied the of the to protect freedom of speech and press.
Palko v. Connecticut (1937): The held that certain provisions of the were fundamental and therefore incorporated against the states through the of the .
(1968): The incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury against the states.
These cases help to illustrate the evolution of the doctrine, and how the has used the of the to apply certain provisions of the to the states. These decisions have helped to ensure that individual rights are protected against state intrusion, and that the states are held to the same standards as the federal government in terms of protecting individual rights and liberties.
🎥 Watch: AP GOPO - Breaking Down the 14th Amendment
Some takeaways of the and are:
The of the is a constitutional provision that requires the government to follow fair and just procedures when it takes away a person's life, liberty, or property. It ensures that the government does not act arbitrarily or unjustly and that individual rights are protected against government infringement.
The protects individual rights against government intrusion by requiring the government to follow certain procedures when it takes away a person's life, liberty, or property. For example, the Clause requires the government to provide a fair trial, to give notice and an opportunity to be heard, and to provide a neutral and impartial decision-maker. The courts use various tests and standards, such as the "clear and present danger" test, to strike a balance between the state's power to regulate and the individual's rights and liberties.
is a legal doctrine that applies the (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) to the states through the of the . It means that certain provisions of the are incorporated against the states, making them enforceable through the . The uses a variety of tests, such as the "" test, to determine which provisions of the should be incorporated.
Examples of court cases that involve include McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), (1925), Palko v. Connecticut (1937), and (1968). These cases dealt with a wide range of individual rights, including freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to a trial by jury.
Bill of Rights
: The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution that protect individual liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and press; right to bear arms; protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; etc.Due Process Clause
: The Due Process Clause is a provision in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution that prohibits the government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property without fair procedures.Duncan v. Louisiana
: Duncan v. Louisiana is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1968 that ruled the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury in criminal cases was applicable to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.Exclusionary Rule
: The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States which states that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for criminal prosecution in court.Fourteenth Amendment
: The Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law and extends citizenship rights.Fundamental Rights
: Fundamental rights are basic human rights considered essential for life in a democratic society, as recognized by the US Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.Gitlow v. New York
: A Supreme Court case in 1925 where it was decided that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause extended the First Amendment's provisions on freedom of speech and press to apply to state governments as well as federal government.Incorporation
: Incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that allows the Bill of Rights to be applied to state laws, not just federal ones. This is done through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.Mapp v Ohio
: A landmark Supreme Court case in 1961 that established the principle of "exclusionary rule," which states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a state law criminal prosecution.McDonald v Chicago
: McDonald v Chicago is a landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 that ruled the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states through the doctrine of incorporation.Palko v Connecticut
: A Supreme Court case in 1937 where it was decided that protection against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime) did not apply to state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment.Selective Incorporation
: Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that infringe or take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.Supreme Court
: The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.7 min read•february 11, 2023
Annika Tekumulla
Riya Patel
Annika Tekumulla
Riya Patel
is the process by which the applies the provisions of the (which are the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) to the states through the of the . Before the process, the was only applicable to the federal government and not the states. Through , the has incorporated many of the provisions of the , such as the right to free speech, religion, and bear arms, and applied them to the states, thereby providing broader protection of individual rights against state governments. This process has been ongoing and the continues to evaluate which provisions of the should be incorporated and how they should be applied to the states.
works through the legal process of judicial review, in which the evaluates whether a particular law or government action complies with the Constitution. In the context of , the has the power to determine whether a particular provision of the should be applied to the states.
When a person challenges a state law or action as violating their constitutional rights, the will apply a level of scrutiny to determine whether the law or action complies with the of the . If the determines that the law or action violates a provision of the that has been incorporated, it will strike down the law or action as unconstitutional.
The process has been ongoing, with the gradually incorporating more provisions of the over time. The Court considers various factors when evaluating whether to incorporate a provision, such as the historical background and significance of the provision, the practical importance of the right in question, and the nature of the interests involved.
In summary, works through the legal process of judicial review, in which the applies the provisions of the to the states through the of the , and determines whether state laws or actions comply with the Constitution.
An example of this is the court case of (2010). McDonald v. Chicago (2010) was a landmark case that dealt with the Second Amendment right to bear arms and the extent to which that right could be regulated by states and cities. The plaintiff, Otis McDonald, was a resident of Chicago who claimed that the city's strict gun control laws violated his right to keep and bear arms. The ultimately held that the Second Amendment right to bear arms applies to the states through the of the through the 's . The decision limited the power of states and cities to regulate firearms and ensured that the individual right to bear arms was protected against government infringement.
Another historic court case related to is (1961). This case ruled that illegally seized evidence cannot be used in court against the accused. The held that evidence collected from an unlawful search must be excluded from trial. This ruling incorporated the Fourth Amendment’s protection of privacy using the of the 14th Amendment.
Other important cases involving include:
(1925): The first applied the of the to protect freedom of speech and press.
Palko v. Connecticut (1937): The held that certain provisions of the were fundamental and therefore incorporated against the states through the of the .
(1968): The incorporated the Sixth Amendment right to a trial by jury against the states.
These cases help to illustrate the evolution of the doctrine, and how the has used the of the to apply certain provisions of the to the states. These decisions have helped to ensure that individual rights are protected against state intrusion, and that the states are held to the same standards as the federal government in terms of protecting individual rights and liberties.
🎥 Watch: AP GOPO - Breaking Down the 14th Amendment
Some takeaways of the and are:
The of the is a constitutional provision that requires the government to follow fair and just procedures when it takes away a person's life, liberty, or property. It ensures that the government does not act arbitrarily or unjustly and that individual rights are protected against government infringement.
The protects individual rights against government intrusion by requiring the government to follow certain procedures when it takes away a person's life, liberty, or property. For example, the Clause requires the government to provide a fair trial, to give notice and an opportunity to be heard, and to provide a neutral and impartial decision-maker. The courts use various tests and standards, such as the "clear and present danger" test, to strike a balance between the state's power to regulate and the individual's rights and liberties.
is a legal doctrine that applies the (the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution) to the states through the of the . It means that certain provisions of the are incorporated against the states, making them enforceable through the . The uses a variety of tests, such as the "" test, to determine which provisions of the should be incorporated.
Examples of court cases that involve include McDonald v. Chicago (2010), Mapp v. Ohio (1961), (1925), Palko v. Connecticut (1937), and (1968). These cases dealt with a wide range of individual rights, including freedom of speech, the right to a fair trial, the right to privacy, the right to bear arms, and the right to a trial by jury.
Bill of Rights
: The Bill of Rights is the first ten amendments to the U.S. Constitution that protect individual liberties such as freedom of speech, religion, and press; right to bear arms; protection against unreasonable searches and seizures; etc.Due Process Clause
: The Due Process Clause is a provision in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the US Constitution that prohibits the government from depriving individuals of their life, liberty, or property without fair procedures.Duncan v. Louisiana
: Duncan v. Louisiana is a landmark Supreme Court case from 1968 that ruled the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a trial by jury in criminal cases was applicable to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment.Exclusionary Rule
: The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States which states that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is sometimes inadmissible for criminal prosecution in court.Fourteenth Amendment
: The Fourteenth Amendment is a part of the U.S. Constitution that guarantees equal protection under the law and extends citizenship rights.Fundamental Rights
: Fundamental rights are basic human rights considered essential for life in a democratic society, as recognized by the US Constitution or Supreme Court precedent.Gitlow v. New York
: A Supreme Court case in 1925 where it was decided that the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause extended the First Amendment's provisions on freedom of speech and press to apply to state governments as well as federal government.Incorporation
: Incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that allows the Bill of Rights to be applied to state laws, not just federal ones. This is done through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause.Mapp v Ohio
: A landmark Supreme Court case in 1961 that established the principle of "exclusionary rule," which states that evidence obtained illegally cannot be used in a state law criminal prosecution.McDonald v Chicago
: McDonald v Chicago is a landmark Supreme Court case in 2010 that ruled the Second Amendment's right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is applicable to the states through the doctrine of incorporation.Palko v Connecticut
: A Supreme Court case in 1937 where it was decided that protection against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime) did not apply to state governments under the Fourteenth Amendment.Selective Incorporation
: Selective incorporation is a constitutional doctrine that ensures states cannot enact laws that infringe or take away the constitutional rights of American citizens that are enshrined in the Bill of Rights.Supreme Court
: The Supreme Court is the highest federal court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal and state court cases that involve a point of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases.© 2024 Fiveable Inc. All rights reserved.
AP® and SAT® are trademarks registered by the College Board, which is not affiliated with, and does not endorse this website.