Civil Rights and Civil Liberties

Question-Select one case of Cases and Controversies: Civil Rights and Liberties in Context. After thoroughly exploring the case, use it as the basis for a 2-3 page examination of the impact of United States Supreme Court rulings on our daily lives,a summary of the appropriate facts of the case you selected, a discussion of what the Court was actually asked to decide the issue's, how the court ultimately decided this/these issues and an explanation of why the court decided the way that they did? Table of Contents Case: Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) 3 Introduction Issue Facts of the case Arguments and Previous Decisions Judgment Conclusion References Case: Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833) Introduction The case of Barron vs. Baltimore (Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 1833) as a significant case where the decision of the Supreme Court with regard to the American Constitutions Bill of Rights is very crucial. The Supreme Court ruled that the Bill of Rights in the Constitution restricts only powers of the federal government and not the powers of the state government (Irons, 2005). Issue The issue in this particular case was that whether the Fifth Amendment allows or denies the states and the federal government the right to take away the private properties of individuals for the public use without giving proper compensation to the owner of the property. Facts of the case In this case the person John Barron owned a lucrative wharf in the harbor of Baltimore. He had sued the Mayor of Baltimore for damages because when the city diverted the flow of stream when a street construction was carried out a lot of sand and earth was created near the wharf that made the water very shallow for most of the vessels that arrived at the harbor. When the case was in the trial court the court awarded $4,500 to Barron (Haeck Brems, n.d.). However, later the appellate court reversed the decision. Arguments and Previous Decisions During the trial of the case at the Baltimore county court, the plaintiff provided sufficient evidence to prove the original course of the streams and also the various other works of the corporation that in regular time periods turned the direction of the wharf and resulted in ruining the business of the plaintiff (Barker Barker, 1972). The defendants did not assert even once that they made any compensation for the injury and further they also justified that under the appropriate authority that they had deduced from the charter of the city that was granted by the Maryland Legislature and also under some other acts of the legislature that conferred powers to the corporation with respect to paving of streets, regulation of harbor and also the health of the city. The defendants further denied that the plaintiff had shown any cause of action and further asserted that the injury that has been complained by the plaintiff was an issue relating to public nuisance and it cannot be considered as any individual grievance under the law. The last ground was considered to be an exception and was considered as reason for motion in arrest. With regard to all the points the Baltimore county court went against the defendants and finally a verdict was given to give the plaintiff $4,500 (Hall, 1987). An appeal was made to the court of appeals that reversed the judgment of the Baltimore County Court and after the judgment of the court of appeals the defendants prosecuted a writ of errors. A number of points were put forward by the counsel of the plaintiffs. The legislative sanctions of Maryland, the corporation acts of Baltimore, the protection for interests in wharves constructions, the rights and profits of wharfage and the objects of navigation were a vested interest and incorporeal heriditatment. These interests are inviolable by the states except by giving just and proper compensation. Judgment The decision of the Supreme Court was that regarding the Bill of Rights particularly the gurantee under the Fifth Amendment that the governments cannot take private property for public use without paying just and proper compensation is restrictions that are applicable to the federal government only (Torr, 2003). In an unanimous decision the Court held that the first tem amendments do not contain any such indication that the restrictions apply to the state governments also. Conclusion The ruling in the case of Barron v. Baltimore was very simple that the Bill of Rights apply to the federal government only and not to the states. Chief Justice Marshall had also stated that this interpretation was made without any difficulty and it was evident from the structure and language of the Constitution (Cohen Wells, 2004). Nevertheless, despite the ruling of the Court the state governments interpret the Bill of Rights as applying to their government and further view them as reflection of the general laws Anglo- American culture. This ruling prevailed in the federal courts of the United States till the Fourteenth Amendment was passed after the civil war (Friedman, 2002). Slowly since then the Supreme Court interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment and it banned the state governments from taking away of the rights of life, liberty or property without the due process of law. Further a number of amendments in the Bill of Rights against the states were incorporated including the taki ngs clause in the Fifth Amendment. References Barker, L., Barker, T. (1972).Freedoms, courts, politics. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. Barron v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833). Cohen, D., Wells, J. (2004).American national security and civil liberties in an era of terrorism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Friedman, L. (2002).American law in the 20th century. New Haven: Yale University Press. Haeck, Y., Brems, E.Human rights and civil liberties in the 21st Century. Hall, K. (1987).Civil liberties in American history. New York: Garland. Irons, P. (2005).Cases and controversies. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Prentice Hall. Torr, J. (2003).Civil liberties. San Diego, CA: Greenhaven Press.