Constitutional right in the context of "Naval Station Guantanamo Bay"

A tyrant (from Ancient Greek τύραννος (túrannos) 'absolute ruler'), in the modern English usage of the word, is an absolute ruler who is unrestrained by law, or one who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty. Often portrayed as cruel, tyrants may defend their positions by resorting to repressive means. The original Greek term meant an absolute sovereign who came to power without constitutional right, yet the word had a neutral connotation during the Archaic and early Classical periods. However, Greek philosopher Plato saw tyrannos as a negative form of government, and on account of the decisive influence of philosophy on politics, deemed tyranny the "fourth and worst disorder of a state."

The philosophers Plato and Aristotle defined a tyrant as a person who rules without law, using extreme and cruel methods against both his own people and others. The Encyclopédie defined the term as a usurper of sovereign power who makes "his subjects the victims of his passions and unjust desires, which he substitutes for laws".In the late fifth and fourth centuries BC, a new kind of tyrant, one who had the support of the military, arose – specifically in Sicily.

Human rights in Canada have come under increasing public attention and legal protection since World War II. Inspired by Canada's involvement in the creation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948, the current legal framework for human rights in Canada consists of constitutional entitlements, and statutory human rights codes, both federal and provincial.

The Supreme Court of Canada first recognized an implied bill of rights in 1938 in the decision Reference Re Alberta Statutes. However, prior to the advent of the Canadian Bill of Rights in 1960 and its successor the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982 (part of the Constitution of Canada), the laws of Canada did not provide much in the way of civil rights and was typically of limited concern to the courts. The protections which did exist focused on specific issues, rather than taking a general approach to human rights with some provincial and federal laws offering limited safeguards.

In the context of the United States, secession primarily refers to the voluntary withdrawal of one or more states from the Union that constitutes the United States; but may loosely refer to leaving a state or territory to form a separate territory or new state, or to the severing of an area from a city or county within a state. Advocates for secession are called disunionists by their contemporaries in various historical documents.

Threats and aspirations to secede from the United States, or arguments justifying secession, have been a feature of the country's politics almost since its birth. Some have argued for secession as a constitutional right and others as from a natural right of revolution. In Texas v. White (1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional, while commenting that revolution or consent of the states could lead to a successful secession.

The Constitutional Council (French: Conseil constitutionnel, [kɔ̃sɛj kɔ̃stitysjɔnɛl]) is the highest constitutional authority in France. It was established by the Constitution of the Fifth Republic on 4 October 1958 to ensure that constitutional principles and rules are upheld. It is housed in the Palais-Royal in Paris. Its main activity is to rule on whether proposed statutes conform with the Constitution, after they have been voted by Parliament and before they are signed into law by the president of the republic (a priori review), or passed by the government as a decree, which has law status in many domains, a right granted to the government under delegation of Parliament.

Since 1 March 2010, individual citizens who are party to a trial or a lawsuit have been able to ask for the council to review whether the law applied in the case is constitutional (a posteriori review). In 1971, the council ruled that conformity with the Constitution also entails conformity with two other texts referred to in the preamble of the Constitution, the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and the preamble of the constitution of the Fourth Republic, both of which list constitutional rights.

The Selma to Montgomery marches were three protest marches, held in 1965, along the 54-mile (87 km) highway from Selma, Alabama, to the state capital of Montgomery. The marches were organized by nonviolent activists to demonstrate the desire of African-American citizens to exercise their constitutional right to vote, in defiance of segregationist repression; they were part of a broader voting rights movement underway in Selma and throughout the American South. By highlighting racial injustice, they contributed to passage that year of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark federal achievement of the civil rights movement.

Since the late 19th century, Southern state legislatures had passed and maintained a series of Jim Crow laws that had disenfranchised the millions of African Americans across the South and enforced racial segregation. The initial voter registration drive, started in 1963 by the African-American Dallas County Voters League (DCVL) and the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) failed as local White officials arrested the organizers and otherwise harassed Blacks wishing to register to vote. The passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 legally ended segregation but the situation in Selma changed little. The DCVL then invited Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. and the activists of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC) to amplify the efforts, and these figures drew more prominent people to Alabama. Local and regional protests began in January 1965, with 3,000 people arrested by the end of February. On February 26, activist and deacon Jimmie Lee Jackson died after being shot several days earlier by state trooper James Bonard Fowler during a peaceful march in nearby Marion. To defuse and refocus the Black community's outrage, James Bevel, who was directing SCLC's Selma voting rights movement, called for a march of dramatic length, from Selma to the state capital of Montgomery, calling for an unhindered exercise of the right to vote.

Guantanamo Bay Naval Base (Spanish: Base Naval de la Bahía de Guantánamo), officially known as Naval Station Guantanamo Bay or NSGB, (also called GTMO, pronounced Gitmo /ˈɡɪtmoʊ/ GIT-moh as jargon by the U.S. military) is a United States military base located on 45 square miles (117 km) of land and water on the shore of Guantánamo Bay at the southeastern end of Cuba. It has been "leased" from Cuba to the U.S., without expiry, since 1903 as a coaling station and naval base. It is the oldest overseas American naval base. Since 1974, the U.S. has paid the Cuban government an annual sum equivalent to $4,085 in 1934 dollars (approximately $96,018 in 2024) to lease the bay. The lease was previously $2,000 per year (paid in gold) until 1934, when it was set to match the value of gold in dollars.

Since taking power in 1959, the Cuban government has consistently protested against the U.S. presence on Cuban soil, arguing that the base was imposed on Cuba by force and is illegal under international law. The lease requires either bilateral consent or full U.S. military withdrawal in order to terminate lease. Since 2002, the naval base has maintained the Guantanamo Bay detention camp for alleged unlawful combatants captured in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other places during the war on terror. Cases of alleged torture of prisoners by the U.S. military and their denial of protection under the Geneva Conventions have been criticized. The base has been a focal point for debates over civil liberties, notably influenced by the landmark 2008 Supreme Court decision in Boumediene v. Bush. This ruling affirmed the constitutional right of detainees to challenge their detention via habeas corpus, highlighting the ongoing tensions between national security and civil liberties.

In U.S. constitutional law, when a law infringes upon a fundamental constitutional right, the court may apply the strict scrutiny standard. Strict scrutiny holds the challenged law as presumptively invalid unless the government can demonstrate that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve that compelling purpose, and that it uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve that purpose. Failure to meet this standard will result in striking the law as unconstitutional.

Strict scrutiny is the highest and most stringent standard of judicial review in the United States and is part of the levels of judicial scrutiny that US courts use to determine whether a constitutional right or principle should give way to the government's interest against observance of the principle. The lesser standards are rational basis review and exacting or intermediate scrutiny. These standards are applied to statutes and government action at all levels of government within the United States.