Questions: 3. Select two cases in which the Supreme Court incorporated provisions of the Bill of Rights: - Gitlow v. New York (freedom of speech) - Mapp v. Ohio (protection against unreasonable search and seizure) - Gideon v. Wainwright (right to a lawyer) - Griswold v. Connecticut (right to privacy) - McDonald v. Chicago (right to bear arms) Briefly summarize the two cases and explain why the provisions were incorporated on a case-by-case basis. (4 points)

The two cases in which the Supreme Court incorporated provisions of the Bill of Rights are:

• Gitlow v. New York (freedom of speech)
• Mapp v. Ohio (protection against unreasonable search and seizure)

Summary: This case involved Benjamin Gitlow, who was charged under New York's Criminal Anarchy Law for distributing a manifesto that called for the establishment of socialism through strikes and class action. Gitlow argued that his First Amendment rights were violated. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction but, importantly, ruled that the First Amendment's freedom of speech applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause. This marked the beginning of the process of incorporation, where the Court began to apply Bill of Rights protections to the states.

Incorporation Reason: The Court recognized that freedom of speech is a fundamental right that is essential to the liberty of individuals and, therefore, should be protected from state infringement. This case set a precedent for the incorporation of other rights.

Summary: Dollree Mapp was convicted of possessing obscene materials after an illegal police search of her home for a fugitive. She appealed her conviction on the basis that the evidence obtained was in violation of her Fourth Amendment rights. The Supreme Court ruled in her favor, stating that evidence obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, cannot be used in state courts. This decision applied the exclusionary rule to the states.

Incorporation Reason: The Court determined that the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures is a fundamental right that is necessary to ensure fairness in the judicial process. By incorporating this right, the Court aimed to uphold the principle of due process and prevent state authorities from violating individuals' constitutional protections.

The incorporation of these provisions was done on a case-by-case basis because the Supreme Court evaluated each right's fundamental nature and its importance to the concept of liberty and justice. This selective incorporation process allowed the Court to extend federal protections to state actions, ensuring that individual rights were uniformly protected across the United States.