Argumentative Essay On Safety Vs Security

In 1798 the U.S Congress and the president John Adams passed the alien and sedition acts. The acts restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press. The acts also gave the power to deport someone or race out of the country. It gave more power to the federal government taking away state powers. Many people said that the acts were unconstitutional but others did not.I believe that the acts violated the constitution and this is why.

In 1798, President John Adams passed the Alien and Sedition Acts containing three parts: the Alien Act, the Sedition Act, and the Naturalization Act. The Alien Act allowed the President to deport any immigrant he found dangerous to the nation, the Sedition Act made it a crime to criticize the government, and the Naturalization Act lengthened the citizenship process. All of these acts were repealed by 1802 due to all of their negative impacts. The Alien and Sedition Acts adversely impacted the nation through the deprivation of human rights, which ultimately led to societal rebellion and controversy. The Alien and Sedition Acts took away the rights declared in the first amendment: freedom of speech and freedom of press. In addition, these acts violated the rights of all immigrants during the time. Lastly, even

The main reason for this legislation was to keep the United States isolated from the rest of the world, which many Americans believed would keep us safe from an attack on America. Americans were so afraid of a threat to the country, the United States disregarded one of its most beloved Amendments of the Constitution, the First which gives citizens the freedom of speech.

The first example of this was the Sedition acts passed in tandem with the Alien acts. The Sedition acts was passed to “Ban conspiracy and revolt”, and essentially banned speaking maliciously about the President or Congress. These laws took away the people’s freedom of press, and the freedom of speech, which are 2 major components of our founding principles and the bill of rights. Adams took away these rights that the people were guaranteed, since people exercised their right to speak out against the government, which is severely unconstitutional. This relates back to my claim that Adams was bad due to his lack of granting rights through the Sedition acts. Another lack of rights during Adams presidency was Fries’s Rebellion. Fries’s Rebellion was a protest against a “High tax on all real property, including land, buildings, and slaves, in anticipation for war against France”. ( www.Britannica.com) This tax, commonly called the Direct House of Tax, was passed to raise $2 million for the anticipated war against france. The tax expected Pennsylvania to pay $237,000, and when people refused to pay it saying it was not based on population (The main reason it was so high was because of the size of Pennsylvania houses, measured by the number of windows.) During the incident, when the people of the rebellion marched to try to free the tax resisters who

What’s more important freedom or security? Without one or the other we as a nation would crumble from the mixed economy we are today, but how do you apply freedom and security to our nation without one overpowering the other? There are many solutions to this problem; however, our government has really left us with no choice. An article under the title “Does the Fourth Amendment Protect Us?” by Daniel Zwerdling, supports the detail of the government not giving us much of a choice whether freedom should even be considered in a new age of technology. It’s what protects us from the government spying on us (Zwerdling, 2013).

Benjamin Franklin wrote, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

“Those who surrender freedom for security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one.” This is a quote by our founding father Benjamin Franklin. Imagine you're in the George Orwell novel 1984 and you have big brother watching you every hour, every minute. Looking at what you eat, who you talk to, and what you do. Sadly, what George Orwell predicted is slowly started to become reality with the Patriot Act. Today I will go over the Patriot Act, those who are for it, and those like myself who are against it.

In 1784, Benjamin Franklin stated, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." It is hard to say whether or not Benjamin Franklin is right due to the fact that we face different struggles in this day and age that people in Napoleon Bonaparte’s and Franklin’s era did not have to worry about. Our situations regarding security and freedom, especially after September 11, 2001, dramatically changed as citizens realized how often their everyday lives were jeopardized with each new discovery and invention concerning weapons or violence.

Those who give up liberty for the sake of security deserve neither liberty nor security

How far are Americans willing to go when it comes to giving up their Constitutionally-guaranteed liberties in order to provide more security against deranged, radical bombers who hate Americans and who strike at public events? That is the topic of this paper, and two articles on this subject will be outlined in order to provide perspective. Thesis: Whether Americans like it or not, they will be giving up a degree of privacy as more cameras are put in place in big cities.

For the Past ten to twenty years the main topic in politics and national news has been National Security, the National Security Agency and terrorism. For many adults and military personnel there is a constant everyday concern about border security and the nation's security from terrorism. There are everyday threats from terrorist; anywhere from shootings to nuclear attacks that could put the American people in immediate danger. With the United States being one of the leading countries in the world, it puts the American people up to higher threats from the nation's enemies For the sake of national security many would argue that it is necessary to give up some personal freedoms and information to be

Have you ever been in driving around, looking at your surroundings, suddenly seeing a camera in an intersection? How did you react? Were you nervous? Were you confused? Did you have a feeling of safety? The use of CCTV cameras and public surveillance have made a jump in usage within the past couple of years. In society today, they play major roles in public safety such as reducing crime rate, gathering clues for court trials, and helping catch criminals.

The U.S. Constitution ensures our privilege of security and the privilege to be free from unreasonable search and seizures. But to what degree is unreasonable? I believe that these rights might be misinterpreted depending on the circumstance that is happening. In the event that something is to affect the health and happiness of the common people, in other words, national security. At that point I do believe these rights should to be put on delay for the occasion. I feel that national security is more imperative than protection to a degree. I feel that when all else fails, compromise is unavoidable. There have been an excessive number of “attacks,” and some of these attacks could have been avoided, an example of this is when a terrorist enters this country and hurts a large number of individuals. Likewise another argument is that our borders are permitting a huge number of unlawful, unidentified individuals to this country and we don’t know what they are prepared to do or what they are capable of.

After 9/11 America became obsessed with the security of airports and their passengers. Airlines now follow extensive protocols to keep people safe on planes, but sadly they do not work. The TSA (Transportation Security Administration) is in charge of creating protocols that deem someone safe to board the plane. Over the last couple of years, the security procedures at airports have increased but not enough to keep up with modern times. This, along with the limitations of their workers, the minute amount of security outside the terminal, and the miniscule screening process in the terminal itself, makes the chance of being hi-jacked just as likely as before but now a larger hassle for those flying and screening passengers. Although it may seem like the TSA is just putting on a show, remember they are but it is a show that saves lives.

Today, Canadian’s lives today are as translucent as ever. Most organizations especially the government constantly watches each and every one of our moves. From driving to the shopping mall to withdrawing money from the ATM machine, Canadians are being watched constantly. With Canada’s commitment to advance technology and infrastructure in the 1960s, government surveillance is much easier and much more prevalent than it was hundreds of years ago. Even as early as 1940s, the Dominion Bureau of Statistics used punch cards and machines to determine who is available for conscription in the military. Several ethnicity groups such as the Germans, the Italians, the Japanese, the Chinese and the Indians were removed from the military. Today, with the advancement of information technology such as the internet and high speed security cameras, access to personal information by the government has never been much easier. For instance, airport security now uses finger printing, cameras, and electronic devices in passports that did not exist in the 1990s. For the majority of Canadians, this is a concern because it goes directly against their rights to freedom and privacy. For example, more than half of Canadians in 2012 said that they are against police and intelligence services acquiring information on Canadians on social media sites. Two-third of Canadians in the same year did not agree to the statement “police and intelligence agencies should have more powers to ensure security even if