Pros And Cons Of Civil Liberties Essay

During the next few years the Bill of Rights began to be accepted by the

In the development process of America, its sound that legislative system has a very solid foundation for the construction of American society. The Bill of Rights as one of the successful act in America, its importance position has never been ignored. The Bill of Rights was introduced by James Madison and came into effect on December 15, 1791. It has given the powerful support for the improvements of American society. The Bill of Rights has become an essential part in guaranteeing the further development of culture. The influence of The Bill of Rights can be easily found in its cultural revolutionizing. It can not only guarantee the harmonious relationship among all the walk of society, but can also promote the construction of harmonious

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

"If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perpetuation." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1938 (Isaacs 66)

Arousing the Civil Rights Act instated in 1964, Judge Lee Rosenthal of Southern District of Texas ruled that Title VII forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, supplementing the traditional instated prohibition of prejudice based on one’s color, race, religion, sex, and national origin in the workplace. Concluding that biased notions towards one’s sexuality and transgender status are forms of discriminant towards one’s sex, Judge Rosenthal decreed the inclusion for protections of non-heteronormative individuals.

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights are two terms that are often used interchangeably in America. Since the founding of our nation there has always been the debate of the limit of government and what rights were guaranteed to each individual. Many of the architects of our government feared that national government could one day become too powerful and begin to infringe on the individual rights of the citizens. As a result, a Bill of Rights was added to our constitution. The Bill of Rights serves as a guide of what the government cannot do. Civil Liberties simply establish precedent on what rights the United States government cannot abridge on. Civil Rights, on the other hand applies to the rights of individuals. Over the history of our nation the question of civil rights has found itself becoming a pillar of our legal system and has been very instrumental in our quest to become a “more perfect union”. In recent history one civil liberty that has caused a continual controversial debate is the second amendment, in addition to how it applies to gun control measures that are being proposed in order to decrease the level of mass shootings. The second amendment clearly defines the intention of individuals to have the right to bear arms. In order to understand why gun control advocates have failed to secure effective gun control legislation, we must explore the reasoning why the second amendment is interpreted the way it is and should Americans be allowed to own guns?

When the first ten amendments were added to the Constitution, they were planned to shield the public from the national government and not the states. States had their individual constitutions, and their laws only had to comply with their constitution. The founders of our country were very concerned about creating too powerful of a centralized government that might overstep on the given civil liberties of the public. As a protection of individual liberties, the Bill of Rights was formed. The Bill of Rights contains the first ten amendments of the Constitution and protect and preserve inalienable rights against abuse by the federal government.

Our Founding Founders established the federal government with three distinct branches, each with powers over the other in order to have a proper checks and balances to ensure fairness across the board. The U.S. Constitution outlines the powers and responsibilities of the three branches of government and is a critical document for the federal government. Important laws and documents such as The Bill of Rights, The US Civil Rights Act and The Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) are managed by our Constitution. Below we will discuss three subjects which set up a diverse broad range of viewpoints that are essential in our democracy.

The First Amendment one that is watered down, serves as example of the freedom we as Americans have. It is best known as the amendment that lets us say what we want when we want. There is more to it that gets overlooked. It blocks government from establishing a theocracy, grants the people the right to peacefully assemble and protest the government for a redress of grievances. Our press is independent and is given freedom to publish at will. Our freedoms embolden us to speak out and organize for progress and against society's wrongs. Sometimes groups will organize to speak out but will sink to extreme measures as a means of expression. The first amendment has seen challenges in recent months. “Donald Trump referred to the press, and I'm quoting his exact words, as "dishonest, disgusting, and scum."Just ten days ago, you might have heard in a press conference, President Donald Trump said that the "press is out of control."(Chemerinsky, 553). To clashes between different ideologies on college campuses with some initiating riots. The first amendment grants many freedoms, however it does not grant protection from consequence.

After the Revolution, the States adopted their own constitutions, many of which contained a Bill of Rights. The Americans still faced the challenge of creating a central government for their new nation. In 1777 the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781. Under the Articles, the states retained their “sovereignty, freedom and independence,” while the national government was kept weak and inferior. Over the next few years it became evident that the system of government that had been chosen was not strong enough to completely settle and defend the frontier, regulating trade, currency and commerce, and organizing thirteen states into one union.

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.

To prevent the human nature, contaminate the government power, we accept to face the terrible side of human nature. According to the Federalist No.51 “If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Once again, James Madison explains the importance of check and balance system of republic.

Benjamin Franklin, one of the founding fathers of the United States, once said “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” In America’s society today, some are willing to sacrifice their civil liberties in order to gain protection and security over some potential threat. Especially after the events of September 11th and several attempted bombings in U.S. cities. This sacrifice of individual freedoms such as the freedom of speech, expression, the right to information, to new technologies, and so forth, for additional protection is more of a loss than a gain. Citizens of the United States deserve equal liberty and safety overall, as someone should not have to give up

1. Discuss when, why and how the Cold War began. Then cite at least one factor that perpetuated the Cold War in each decade from the 1950s-1980s and discuss how the item you selected affected America at home as well. Last, discuss when and why the Cold War ended.

Negative and positive liberty are best understood as distinct values within Berlin’s own scheme of value pluralism. While an increase in either is desirable, ceteris paribus, attempting to maximize any single idea of liberty without regard to any other values necessarily entails absurd and clearly undesirable conclusions; any sensible idea of jointly maximizing freedom in general, therefore, must acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in increasing one aspect of freedom or another. The tension here is akin to the familiar tradeoff between equity and efficiency concerns in economics; negative and positive freedom are not diametrically opposed, but the two ideals may not be individually maximized at the same time.