Florida Law
Florida Constitutional Law
Constitutional Law
Ratified in 1788 and amended periodically thereafter, the U.S. Constitution establishes the fundamentals of the American system of government: three federal branches, each with their respective powers; a federal government sharing power with the state governments; and the basic rights granted to each citizen. Each of the 50 states, including Florida, have their own state constitutions which spell out the organization of the state and local governments and the rights of state citizens, but the U.S. Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" and state constitutions must accord their citizens at least the same rights and protections as the federal Constitution.
While the relationship among the three federal branches and between the federal government and the states is interesting and important, the most relevant aspect of constitutional law for the consumer is the rights guaranteed to all citizens by the amendments to the Constitution. Thus, the purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of some of our most important constitutional rights.
Constitutional Rights
For the next 78 years, states were under no obligation to accord their citizens the same protections provided in the U.S. Constitution. However, the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted after the Civil War in 1868 for the purpose of protecting African-Americans in their newly found freedoms, prevents states from depriving any person "the due process of law." The Supreme Court has interpreted the "due process clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment to mean that nearly all of the rights included in the first 10 amendments are applicable to the states. Thus, today both the federal and state governments are prohibited from encroaching upon a citizen's personal liberties.
Constitutional rights, however, are not absolute. In a complex, democratic society such as the United States, the rights of individuals and institutions, public and private, must be balanced. In fact, much of what the Supreme Court does when it interprets constitutional law is determine how to balance competing rights. Another point to keep in mind is that constitutional rights protect citizens from government action but, for the most part, do not reach private action. That is, while the state and federal governments cannot abridge a person's right to free speech, a person's neighbors or other private citizens are not similarly obligated.
Freedom of Speech, Press and Assembly
The First Amendment of the Constitution reads "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The freedoms of speech, press, and assembly protect the free flow of ideas, an important function in a democratic society. Government can only restrict speech if its regulations are reasonable, not aimed at suppressing specific ideas, and further some important government interest, like public safety, noise control, litter, etc. For example, it is constitutional for the government to prohibit demonstrations in a hospital zone out of concern for patient safety, or restrict some traffic billboards because they are too distracting and cause accidents. But, the government cannot restrict certain types of demonstrations or advertisements simply because it disagrees with the content of what is said or communicated.
Some speech, however, can be prohibited because of its content. Speech which incites people to violence or lawless action can be prohibited, as can obscene speech, false advertising, and speech that defames someone's reputation. Because of its harmful nature, speech of this sort is not protected by the First Amendment. This is an example of where the Supreme Court has balanced the right of an individual to freely express him- or herself against the government's interest in domestic tranquillity and the rights of others not to be harmed, deceived or defamed.
Freedom of Religion
Also provided in the First Amendment is the freedom of religion. Neither the federal nor state government can make a law "respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ." Thus, the right to freedom of religion comes in two parts: the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. The establishment clause is meant to prevent government from passing laws which advance religion or favor one religious organization over another. It does not mean that there is a strict line separating church and state. For example, "In God We Trust" is imprinted on U.S. currency, state legislatures are permitted to employ a chaplain, and government holiday displays which include symbols from a variety of religions are constitutional. Examples of government action violating the establishment clause include laws providing for school prayer, posting the ten commandments in a public classroom, and a state statute prohibiting the teaching of evolution without also teaching creationism.
The free exercise clause precludes government from punishing someone based on that person's religious beliefs. For example, the Amish are constitutionally permitted to educate their children at home because secondary education violates their religion. But the free exercise clause does not mean that otherwise criminal activity is permissible if it is part of one's religion. The government is still justified in enforcing its criminal laws and regulating other behavior. The Supreme Court has ruled that a state can outlaw polygamy, despite the beliefs of the Mormons; Native Americans are not free to use peyote, even though it is part of a religious ceremony; and the Air Force can prohibit wearing a yarmulke with the military uniform.
Right to Due Process
The Constitution contains two clauses, one each in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, that prohibit government from taking a person's "life, liberty or property without due process of law." Over the years, the Supreme Court has interpreted due process as having two separate, but related meanings: procedural due process and substantive due process.
Procedural due process requires that government provide adequate notice, an opportunity to present objections, and an impartial decision maker prior to a proposed taking of a citizen's life, liberty, or property. What this means, practically, is that the government must hold an evidentiary hearing before terminating welfare benefits; a public school must give notice and an opportunity to explain before a student is temporarily suspended; adults are entitled to a hearing before they are indefinitely committed to a mental institution; and a state must provide a hearing before or shortly after terminating a driving license.
Substantive due process refers to the Supreme Court's examination of the reasons why the government passed a law or otherwise acted in a manner denying a citizen or a group of citizens life, liberty, or property (regardless of whatever procedure the law provides). In some cases, such as when a law infringes upon a citizen's First Amendment rights, right to privacy, right to vote, or makes a racial or sexual classification (see Equal Protection below), the Supreme Court requires the government to have an extremely important or "compelling" reason for the law. The Court will "strictly scrutinize" the government's reasons and, in all likelihood, will strike the law down. In other cases, such as when the government enacts taxation or zoning laws, the personal rights involved are not as fundamental, and the Court will uphold the law as long as the government's motives are not arbitrary or irrational.
Right to Equal Protection of the Laws
Both the state and federal government are prohibited from treating certain classes of citizens differently from others. Perhaps more than any other language in the Constitution, the "equal protection clause" of the Fourteenth Amendment has been used to strike down institutionalized inequality in the United States. In 1954, the Supreme Court used the equal protection clause in the case of Brown v. Board of Education declaring that having "separate but equal" school facilities for black and white students was inherently unequal and therefore unconstitutional.
Often, however, government regulations, by their very nature, must treat people unequally: public programs that benefit the poor exclude the wealthy; programs for children exclude adults; programs for urban areas ignore rural regions. The question, then, is not how does government treat everyone equally, but when is it permissible for government to treat people unequally.
In answering this question, the Supreme Court has said that how a law classifies people determines whether it is constitutional. Laws which classify people according to race or national origin are subject to strict scrutiny and rarely upheld. For example, a 1873 West Virginia law that permitted only white males age twenty-one and older to be jurors was ruled unconstitutional because it was based on race and had a discriminatory intent. Classifications based on gender or legitimacy are also frequently struck down. The Supreme Court has a long history of upholding invalid laws giving men some sort of preference over women or laws punishing illegitimate children. Other classifications, however, such as age or wealth or education, are more agreeable to the Supreme Court. In these cases, the Court will uphold the law as long it bears a rational relationship to a legitimate government interest. For example, public officials or employees can be forced to retire at a certain age.
Right to Privacy
Although not specifically mentioned in the Constitution, the Supreme Court has established that each citizen has a fundamental right to privacy. Any law limiting this right will be strictly scrutinized. The right to privacy includes the freedom to marry, to use contraceptives, to educate children at home, and the freedom to have an abortion. Secured in 1973 in the case of Roe v. Wade, the right to abortion has been under attack for years. In recent cases, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed a woman's right to abortion, but has also upheld laws restricting abortion, such as laws prohibiting public monies or public facilities to be used in performing abortions.
Right to Vote
Another fundamental right is the right to vote. Mentioned in the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Twenty-fourth and Twenty-sixth Amendments, the right to vote can only be restricted if the government shows a compelling reason for doing so. The Supreme Court will strictly scrutinize the government's justification for limiting this right and probably strike down such a law. For example, the Court struck down laws requiring property ownership to vote and laws that diluted or bolstered the effect of a certain group's vote, i.e., laws that gerrymandered voting districts.
Other Constitutional Rights
The Constitution contains a number of other rights, such as those protecting anyone accused of or prosecuted for a crime, i.e., the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, the freedom from self-incrimination, the right to a speedy trial, the right to a jury trial, the right to confront witnesses, freedom from double jeopardy, and freedom from cruel and unusual punishment. There is also a constitutional right to travel, a right to refuse medical treatment, and a limited right for private citizens to bear arms.