The Protection of Civil Rights (AQA A-Level Politics): Revision Notes
The Protection of Civil Rights
Civil rights and civil liberties are fundamental to democratic societies. Both the UK and USA have established constitutional, legislative, and judicial frameworks to protect these rights, though the mechanisms and strength of protection differ significantly between the two countries.
Constitutional protections
Both the UK and USA provide constitutional protection for civil rights and liberties, but the nature and strength of these protections vary considerably.
In the USA, civil rights are primarily protected by the Bill of Rights (1791), which comprises the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. These rights are entrenched, meaning they can only be removed or altered through the formal constitutional amendment process. This makes American constitutional rights extremely difficult to change and provides strong, lasting protection.
What does "entrenched" mean?
Entrenched rights are constitutional rights that cannot be easily changed or removed. They require a special constitutional amendment process, making them much more secure than ordinary laws. This is a key difference between the US and UK systems of rights protection.
In the UK, civil rights are protected by the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA). This Act incorporates the European Convention on Human Rights into British law. However, unlike the US Bill of Rights, the HRA is not entrenched. As an ordinary Act of Parliament, it can be repealed or amended by a simple parliamentary majority. This makes UK rights protection more flexible but also more vulnerable to change.
The UK's membership of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) provides an additional layer of protection. UK citizens who believe their rights have been violated can appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in Strasbourg if they are dissatisfied with a UK Supreme Court ruling. This external oversight provides an important safeguard for rights protection.
Legislative protections
Beyond constitutional frameworks, both countries have passed significant legislation to protect civil rights and promote equality.
UK: Equality Act 2010
The Equality Act 2010 represents a major consolidation of equality legislation in the UK. This law brought together multiple pieces of previous legislation into a single, comprehensive framework.
Equality Act 2010 Definition
Law passed by parliament to bring together many different pieces of equality legislation. These included:
- Equal Pay Act 1970
- Sex Discrimination Act 1975
- Race Relations Act 1976
- Disability Discrimination Act 1995
- Employment Equality Regulations (2003 and 2006)
By unifying these various laws, the Equality Act created a clearer and more accessible framework for protecting rights related to gender, race, disability, and employment.
USA: Civil Rights Act 1964
The Civil Rights Act 1964 was a landmark piece of legislation signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson.
Civil Rights Act 1964 Definition
Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson, it banned racial discrimination in voting. It prohibited voting restrictions such as the literacy tests used to prevent African-Americans from exercising their right to vote.
This Act specifically targeted racial discrimination in voting by banning practices designed to disenfranchise black voters across Southern states.
The role of the judiciary
Both the UK and USA have independent judiciaries that play a crucial role in defending citizens' rights against government overreach. The principle of the rule of law applies in both countries.
Rule of Law Definition
The principle that the law is enforced, and that it is applied equally to everyone.
This means that all citizens, regardless of their status or position, should be subject to the same legal standards and protections.
However, the application of the rule of law is not perfect in either country. A significant exception exists in the treatment of African-Americans within the US police and judicial system, where systemic injustices have been well-documented. Similar concerns have been raised about the experiences of many black Britons when dealing with law enforcement and the courts.
Critical Gap: Theory vs Practice
These ongoing issues highlight the gap between the theoretical protection of rights and their practical application. Even with strong constitutional and legislative protections, systemic inequalities can undermine the rule of law for certain communities.
Comparing Supreme Court powers
The most significant difference between UK and US rights protection lies in the powers of their respective Supreme Courts.
US Supreme Court powers
The US Supreme Court has extensive powers to protect civil rights:
Power to strike down legislation: The Court can declare any federal or state law unconstitutional if it violates citizens' constitutional rights. This power of judicial review gives the Court the authority to effectively nullify legislation passed by elected representatives. This is an extremely powerful tool for protecting rights against potential government overreach.
Landmark rulings: The US Supreme Court can make landmark rulings that effectively act as interpretative amendments to the Constitution. These decisions shape how constitutional rights are understood and applied, often extending protections in ways the original framers may not have anticipated. Examples include cases extending privacy rights, equal protection, and civil liberties.
UK Supreme Court limitations
The UK Supreme Court has a much more limited role in protecting civil rights:
Declaration of incompatibility: Rather than striking down legislation, the UK Supreme Court can only declare an Act of Parliament incompatible with the Human Rights Act. When this occurs, the matter is referred back to Parliament for consideration. Parliament then decides whether to amend the legislation, but it is not legally required to do so. This preserves parliamentary sovereignty but significantly weakens judicial protection of rights.
Narrower interpretative role: While the UK Supreme Court interprets laws, it does not have the broad power to reshape constitutional understanding through landmark rulings in the way the US Supreme Court does.
Memory Aid: US Strikes, UK Suggests
A simple way to remember the difference:
- The US Supreme Court can STRIKE down unconstitutional laws completely
- The UK Supreme Court can only SUGGEST changes through declarations of incompatibility
This fundamental difference reflects the balance between judicial power and parliamentary sovereignty in each country.
Exam guidance
How to Compare UK and USA Rights Protection
When comparing civil rights protection between the UK and USA, focus on these key distinctions:
- Entrenchment: US rights are constitutionally entrenched; UK rights are not entrenched
- Judicial power: US Supreme Court can strike down laws; UK Supreme Court cannot
- Sources of protection: USA relies primarily on its Constitution; UK uses HRA plus ECHR
- Flexibility vs security: UK system is more flexible but less secure; US system is more rigid but more protected
Always support your analysis with specific examples of legislation and court cases where relevant.
Remember!
-
The US Bill of Rights (1791) provides entrenched constitutional protection for civil rights, while the UK Human Rights Act (1998) is not entrenched and can be repealed by Parliament
-
Both countries have passed significant civil rights legislation: the Equality Act 2010 in the UK and the Civil Rights Act 1964 in the USA
-
The rule of law applies in both countries, though systemic inequalities persist in the treatment of racial minorities by police and courts
-
The US Supreme Court has far greater power to protect rights than the UK Supreme Court – it can strike down unconstitutional legislation and make landmark rulings, while the UK Court can only declare laws incompatible with the HRA
-
UK citizens have an additional layer of protection through the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), to which they can appeal if domestic courts do not adequately protect their rights