Graber Constitution During Wartime Analysis

The Wartime Elections Act gave all women that were relatives of soldiers serving (or who died) in WW1, the right to vote. The Military Voters Act gave all men who were serving overseas at the time, the right to vote. The War Measures Act gave the power to the Canadian Government to pursue emergency procedures whenever they feel necessary. This included arresting, or deporting anyone they felt was a threat to the safety of their citizens. All three of these were significant to Canadian history in their own ways, but the Wartime Elections Act had the most significant effect.

According to the Bill of Rights, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Nowhere in the First Amendment does it state that in times of war, the government can change the laws that have been made to protect the people of the United States. Although some thought President Wilson’s actions were just, he did not abide by the rules of the First Amendment, and because of that, he went too far in limiting people’s civil liberties during World War

Do you know that notifying your fellow Americans of their constitutional rights was a Federal crime? Well it was during World War One (WWI). In the case Schenck v. the United States, schenck tried to remind his fellow Americans of their constitutional rights and also let them know that the draft was being used as a form of militarized slavery. This case contained men who his right was taken away after he tried to get the military draftees to fight against the draft. However Congress took his right of speech away when it was arrested and convicted of violating the Espionage Act of 1917. This was the time the WWI one had broken out, the government need men to fight. They were short staffed for that to work and they need man to fight this

​In his book ‘Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America,’ Wrinkler tried to present an unbiased view towards the second amendment in the light of historical events and landmark cases that has tried to challenge or obtain the court’s interpretation. One of such cases is the ‘District of Columbia v. Heller’ case, which was argued and decided in 2008 (Supreme Court of the United States). For several instances, the provision in the Second Amendment that pertains to the right of an individual to bear arms has been contested. In fact, the clause, which states that “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”, is perhaps the most misconstrued clause in the American constitution (Supreme Court of the United States). Adding to the significance of this highly debatable clause is the fact that a flurry of gun related incidences has happened in the United States in the past that has taken many lives including that of children. Among the most significant authors that has attempted to answer the question or at least laid out the possibilities regarding the second amendment is Adam Wrinkler. In light of Winkler’s arguments as well as with other sources, this paper will examine the historical

At the time of the Bill of Rights’ ratification, the United States had only just broken free of the Articles of Confederacy, a document intended to create a loose union with the individual states holding all the power. In order to garner more support for the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment was added in to protect the states’ rights to their own armed forces—a right which is of little importance in the 21st century. Because of the strength of these arguments, pro-gun control advocates point to the historical context in which the 2nd Amendment was written in order to justify stricter laws.

In conclusion, leader’s use the term “war” as a reason to pass laws that otherwise would not be acceptable to the American public. Our history is riddled with actions that violated the individual rights of our citizens. The decimation of the American Indians, Slavery, separate but equal, Jim Crow laws and the killing of civil rights leaders in the South by police. The McCarran Act clearly violated the First Amendment. The Comprehensive Crime Control Act provides a constitutional loophole that allows law enforcement agencies to violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendment with regards to property. The Patriot Act violates the First, Fourth and the Fifth with regards to the criminal process. So how do we get our rights back? The Supreme Court is the avenue, but there are limitations. Political influence: the court is affected by the political climate as in the case of the prosecution of the eleven Communist members during the red scare of the 1950’s (Union 1952). Time: it takes months or even years for the Court to review and decide during this time the citizen is subject to the punishment or loss

We ratified the Bill of Rights so that the Anti-Federalists were satisfied. With the Bill of Rights, we now have to right to bear arms and have a state militia. We can finally defend ourselves against greater enemies. Next, quartering of troops in people’s homes without their permission has been banished. You may finally be content with the privacy of your home and not

In the midst of the deadliest war in American History, there stood a voice of morality and reason on the United States soil. Franz Lieber, a German political philosopher, created a series of political works in which he explained the importance of defining ethical boundaries for soldiers in times of war. In 1863, President Lincoln commissioned Lieber to create a series of laws to reflect his ideas (“Francis Lieber,” 2013). Lieber went on to create what became known as Lieber’s code, which was “history’s first attempt to distill, formalize, and systematize various general concepts that international law, at the time, considered proper restraints for the combatants towards each other and towards civilians” (Forbes, 1985). But what effect did the code have on the Civil War and the preceding time period? Created at an important juncture in history, Lieber’s code not only had a profound effect on the views of controversies during the Civil War, but also influenced the way the world viewed the ethical obligations of military personnel during times of war.

In conclusion, most of these cases depend on how bad the situation is. The only one that is said in the constitution is the case banning the people from wearing burqas. But, in times of crisis, like war, freedom may be taken away. Throughout U.S. history, banning, putting people in camps, and many other freedoms have been taking away during times of danger. Many people view these things as limiting or taking away our freedoms, but according to our government they may be looked at as crisis

The Constitution was written over 200 years ago with the intent to establish a guideline or laws for the government. However, over the years, and with changing times, those Bill of Rights have been challenged. With a diverse society and unique cultural makeup, the United States Constitution has been interpreted in many fashions. This has led to civil disputes of constitutional rights. A good example of this can be seen in an article I read about an Amish man who wanted to purchase a gun. However, gun laws mandate that an individual must have a photo ID to purchase a gun, and Amish do not take photos.

The Constitution of the United States of America, including the Bill of Rights, is an evolving document. Regardless of common misconceptions it is not set in stone. The Bill of Rights was created because there were states that refused to ratify the Constitution without provisions for limiting the power of the federal government. In the twentieth century 12 amendments were added which defined America. On occasion, minor adjustments may be needed to adhere to the times; however, these changes to the Constitution should not compromise its substantial Biblical inspired

The Due Process of Law, or Habeas of Corpus, in short was the fair treatment throughout the Judicial system. It also meant that no citizen may be denied their legal rights. Now Abraham Lincoln used this law, or lack of, in order to gain a hand in the war. To do so Lincoln issued General Winfield Scott an order allowing him to suspend Habeas Corpus. But only near the line between Washington and Philadelphia, and only if the safety of the public was required of it. So basically the law, Habeas corpus, will only be null when the public’s safety was threatened by cases of invasion or such.

Unitarily speaking, the political discourse that is associated with the United States Constitution is unsettling. The line drawn amongst what can be considered a right seems to fluctuate between obscurity and clarity. Although the fluctuation comes at a period of convenience, it is at whose expense that fluctuation comes, ought to be question. The United States Constitution and the term “rights” are politically, socially, and permanently engaged. Out of the political discourse of assessing what constitute as a right, is the question of how outdated is the United States Constitution as it pertains to present day America? We are cautioned, “A country that keeps changing its Constitution, is a sign of instability and indicates that no

Just as President George W. Bush proved when he signed the Military Commission Act of 2001. Basically the administration and congress was taking away criminal liberties in an effort to protect America’s Safety. Or so it seems. Was he really placing the US personnel safety at risk of War Crimes? Our laws are not world laws. This is a form of Rousseau on a macro scale. He was ensuring the liberties of Americans to do as they deemed necessary to accomplish our end state. So viewed from the “unprivileged enemy belligerent,” their liberties where striped in favor of US safety. These enemies could have been alien or Americans citizens (Elsea, J. K. 2014 p. 18). While many American after September 11, 2001 where in masses openly willing to sacrifice their safety for the liberties of this country. Their advantages of social freedom greatly outweigh their need for natural freedom (Hallman, 2012, p. 457).

Amendment III states, “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” This means no soldier will, in time of peace be kept in any house, without the permission of the owner, or in time of war, but in a way to be allowed by the law. The Third Amendment does allow for equality because it allows the citizens to say no to the government when they want to house soldiers in your house. The Fourth Amendment states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” This means the right of the people to have protection for their bodies, houses, or belongings against unreasonable searches and the taking of their belongings will not be violated. No warrant will be issued unless probable cause and supporting evidence or witnesses are provided describing where and who is to be searched or what is to be seized. Amendment IV does allow for equality because it give citizens more power and officers less power because the officers will need a signed warrant to search someone's private belongings. Amendments III and IV give you