Bill Of Rights Document Analysis

The Declaration of Independence is one of the most remarkable documents of the United States of America. The elaborate document contains almost fourteen-hundred words including a basic structure divided into two parts and within the two divided parts contains four main ideas within seven components. The declaration is not just any standard written document; it is a work of art painted by colonists who are driven by rage because of King George III of Great Britain injustices’ toward the colonies. This exemplifies that colonists took control and took part in creating the Declaration of Independence by voicing their opinions, hoping to acquire the freedom they deserve, “through time, to come together in one place, in one time, and in one

“A treasure that we should continually use for our decisions on the new challenges we face.”(Esposito) Frank J. Esposito echos the purpose of The Declaration of Independence(DOI)in this new era and how it should be implemented in a modern government. The DOI is the most influential piece of writing that has ever come to be. It served it’s purpose in 1777 by uniting the colonists against Great Britain in a bold declaration of independence. This persuasive essay was written by Thomas Jefferson and edited by important figures, which are now known as the founding fathers. Not only, is the DOI an important part of history, but it has also become the model for many other persuasive writings. Thomas Jefferson used techniques like siding with the acrimonious reader, considering the historical precedent and the conceding of a point, to create a compelling argument to persuade the reader’s of The Declaration of Independence.

Through the years America has been built on freedom. Freedom to choose, freedom of religion, freedom to speak, and freedom for just about any person to complete anything they wish within that of the law. These laws have already been place in spot to keep and protect our freedom.

Since the founding of the United States of America, freedom has been the basis of the governmental and ruling systems in place. Individual freedoms are protected in both the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Constitution, and Schwartz (2009) explains that ‘public liberty ultimately enhances collective rationality—it is a path to heightening our wisdom by increasing access to pertinent information and improving decision making’ (p. 409). However, there have been many times in history when the true freedom of citizens is called into question. There has always been controversy about how much power the government should have, who is keeping the government in check, and if citizens are properly informed about what their elected governed are doing. The passing of the Patriot Act in 2001 was no exception to this controversy. The

The constitutional amendment that I find to be important is the 19th amendment, which gave women the right to vote (“Constitution of the United States: Amendments 11-27”, n.d.). Throughout history, men were superior to women and as a result, women rarely had a chance to express their views and opinions. The amendment gave women the right to vote, it lead to reproductive rights, it created equal opportunities in the workplace, and it established educational rights.

One beautiful morning in September 2001 many people went about their day like they have before. Some off to work, or traveling for business, or to visit family, and in a blink of an eye our lives in America changed forever. We were attacked, on our own soil, not once, but four times. That fourth plane didn’t make it to its destination, thanks to the brave souls aboard that sacrificed their lives to save others. On that fateful day 2,753(NYmag) families would never be the same, as well as the rest of us that watch in disbelief. The attacks on September 11th 2001 led to something called the Patriot Act. In the days after 9/11 Congress hurried to pass a bill to give law-enforcement agencies the power to fight domestic terrorism. On October 26, President George W. Bush signed three hundred page USA Patriot Act into law (Crf.org). The USA Patriot Act of 2001 was created to prevent and catch terrorist in the United States and around the world. The contents of it has been one of great controversy in the rights of our privacy and the violation of our constitutional rights. Can we give up too much freedom to keep us safe? Where do we draw the line to keep our Country safe?

The US Constitution, The Declaration of Independence as well as the Letter to the Danbury Baptist are not just historical documents, but some of if not the most important documents of the history of our nation. Although, similar in many facets the intentions and the goal pursued by each highlight their individuality. The fact that the Declaration of Independence was the first to be implemented and signed is of significant importance as it set the pace and put in motion the proceeding documents that followed. Ultimately, my goal is to not only show their comparisons or where they may contrast, but to highlight what makes these documents profound and therefore still relative and valid even today.

     In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks US Congress passed legislation known as the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001 commonly known as the USA Patriot Act. This paper will attempt to prove that not only is the USA Patriot Act unconstitutional but many of its provisions do nothing at all to protect Americans from the dangers of terrorism.

Throughout the pass of time, human history has seen different forms of governments, from the tribal leader, to the Roman Republic, to the absolutist monarchies of Europe. Yet, few of them had centered their main ideals in freedom and sovereignty. Actually, sovereignty is a fairly recent term, grasped among Europeans when they finally decided to stop intervening so much in each other’s affairs. For many centuries, monarchies, especially those with an absolute ruler, had been the top choice for European governments, and, as it should have been expected, they had brought the same governing style to the American colonies. Thus, it was not a surprise to observe European governments where an absolute leader had control over everything and everyone,

Our founding fathers imagined a country full of freedom and opportunity. This divine objective, however, did not promise such to everyone. As our government today views the original documents made by our fathers, we come to realize that they did not specify all our questionable rights presently.

On the fourth of July in 1776, Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence was adopted by the Second Continental Congress at the Pennsylvania State House in Philadelphia. This historical document demonstrates how all men are created equal and are entitled to certain rights that must be protected by the government. Approximately thirteen years later, the Constitution was adopted. Attached to the Constitution was a list of amendments, written by James Madison, with the intent to protect the rights of individual liberties. Although both documents were established at different times, they share many common, similar key points. However, they also convey many differences in how the information is portrayed. The first sentence of the third paragraph of the Declaration of Independence is the more significant statement to the people of today’s era

It was October 12, 2001, in the House of Representatives, A sickly sight, politicians gathered around the constitution, like vultures over its prey, was slanting over their chairs as the president George Bush walked to the bill, We were waiting outside the building, a row of protestors voiced their opinions like small animals. The politicians looked at the constitution, then at the fourth amendment, these were the condemned rights, due to be violated within the next week or two.

A paradox has always exists between the issue of civil liberties and national security. Democracy creates civil liberties that allow the freedom of association, expression, as well as movement, but there are some people use such liberal democracy to plan and execute violence, to destabilize State structures. It illustrates the delicate balance existing between reducing civil liberties to enhance security in a state. States have detained suspects for years and have also conducted extensive privacy incursions as strategies to combat terror, however it risks violation of civil liberties. This essay discusses the extent to which a state should be allowed to restrict civil liberties for the enhancement of national security and not abandon democratic values. It looks at aspects of the legal response to terrorism in the United States after the 9/11 attack.

After the devastating attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, this country scrambled to take action to provide future protection. New techniques had to be developed to protect the nation from the menace of terrorism. Along with the new techniques came the decision to enact laws that some believed crossed the threshold of violating civil liberties this county and those living in it were guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States. “On October 26, 2001, the Public Law 107-56, Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism, also known as the USA Patriot Act, was signed into effect” (Stern, 2004, p. 1112). While speaking to Congress,

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 impacted the American people without many of them realizing it. The act called for increased monitoring of computer networks, phone lines, and online history inside the United States and allowed the government to deport suspects (ACLU). What was created by the act has snaked its way into all aspects of our lives, creating a sense of order and restricting some freedom. However, some say that this imposition into our daily lives limits our freedoms and actions allowed us by the Constitution. Many interest groups voice strong resentment for the act while others try to demonstrate the strengths and triumphs of the Homeland Security Act. This paper will show the differing viewpoints of those that feel that the