To What Extent Should A President Have Too Much Power Over Individual Rights

The United States was founded on the belief that every man has “certain inalienable Rights.” Not until ninety years later, however, when slavery was abolished did the United States actually offer these “Rights” to all of its citizens. The 19th century was turbulent time of stress and change for America. One of the most controversial dilemmas was the issue of slavery. Slavery was conceived by many to be morally wrong, and it undermined America’s most valued beliefs. Despite this inconsistency, slavery was still widely supported and permitted out of economic necessity in the South.

"Except where the transgression of Constitutional liberty is too plain for argument, personal freedom is best maintained -- so long as the remedial channels of the democratic process remain open and unobstructed -- when it is

Throughout America’s history, we have believed that humans have individual rights that should be protected and supported by the rulers of our country. The Constitution’s Bill of Rights was created to protect these rights, and the Declaration of Independence even proclaims that “all men are created equal”. However, there were hundreds of people scattered throughout the colonies, and then states, in America who did not have these same rights and were not always seen as human, such as African Americans, women, and Native Americans.

The balance between the duty of the government, both on a state and federal scale, and the citizens’ view of freedoms has been a continuous struggle throughout the readings. Although many members of America’s youth believe that their participation in politics is aimless, public opinion and voting are very important aspects of shaping the government. Without certain civil rights being granted by the government, these important rights of expression and suffrage would not exist.

“Don't interfere with anything in the Constitution. That must be maintained, for it is the only safeguard of our liberties.” Abraham Lincoln made this statement in referring to the emancipation of the slaves. Even though the statement has nothing to deal with the Fourth Amendment, or the Search and Seizure laws within the Constitution, what is stated still brings about a good point relating to the Constitution. The fact being brought out of this quote is that the Constitution’s purpose is to safeguard Americans’ liberties. Along with great points brings questions regarding the quote. Should individuals interfere with the Constitution, more specifically the amendments and rights pertaining to search and seizure laws? In today’s

In order to understand rights and liberties during wartime situations, some background information needs to be addressed and explained. This paper will explain the definition of habeas corpus and the role of the Judicial, Legislative and Executive Branches of government during wartime and conflicts, how the President will sometimes take matter into his own hands.

This Bill of Rights safeguarded fundamental personal rights such as freedom of speech and religion, and the right to trial by jury. Although they adressed the proper balance between the authority o fnational and state governments, that question was constantly contested until the Civil War. This is a continuity from before Washington’s election, since the issue of national authority was present in the weritings of both the Articles of Confederation and the

A president’s job is to keep their citizens safe and protect them from potential harm. Many presidents have ran into trouble while trying to defend their country.

The US Bill of Rights, written to limit government power in response to the tyranny of England on the colonies, gave birth to the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. The fourth amendment, contained within the Bill of Rights, will be the principle subject in this research paper. Swanson, Chamelin, Territo and Taylor (2012), noted the Constitution’s fourth amendment stated the following:

In our society today, we have a government that was made the founding fathers of the constitution. The founding fathers created the way, our government is by making the constitution. As a society, individuals give up rights in order to feel safe and not have one branch of government to control our government. This is why the framers created the bill of rights, so that individuals would have their rights protected. Did the bill of rights always protect the rights given to the people? During times of crises, individuals lose or are limited in the powers that were given to the people of any country. The Unites States was no exception. The framers during the late 1790S were in fear of the French influence on our newly founded nation. With the fear of influence of outside forces, our government passed the sedition act in 1798. The sedition act limited our first and tenth amendment rights and gave our government more discretion to label individuals criminals. Is it right for our government to restrict our individual rights for the safety of the whole nation? In this essay, I will argue how the sedition act of 1798 was unconstitutional and how it violated our amendment rights. I will also take a look at how the sedition act came to be and why the government and president during that time agreed with the law. Does our government always have the best interest of the nation, or is it self-interest?

Thesis: Should the United States President be Limited to the Terms of Service in Office?

Because Abraham Lincoln’s presidency took place during a national crisis, the Lincoln administration not only marks a critical turning point in the political history of slavery but raises questions about the role and responsibility of the executive power during war time. As Nelson and Milkis note, Lincoln ran his administration parallels to that of a forceful leader. As commander in chief, for instance, Lincoln expanded the power granted to the president during war time. Going beyond the scope of presidential power, Lincoln suspended the the writ of habeas corpus in the northern and border states. This suspension is significant in that the action greatly empowered governmental officials, for they could make arrest in an absence of a warrant

The judicial branch, in its conception as outlined in Article III of the constitution was designated the “power to interpret the law, determine the constitutionality of the law, and apply it to individual cases (The White House)”. However, since the ratification of the constitution, much like the other two branches of government, the judicial branch has also experienced an expanded delegation of authority and power. This notion is evidenced in the 1803 decision on the case of Marbury v. Madison where the Supreme Court asserted its power of judicial review by ”blocking last-minute appointments by outgoing President John Adams (Chegg)” by declaring that these actions should not be permitted because the supreme court, under chief justice john Marshall declared them unconstitutional(Cornell). This set forth a very powerful precedent for judicial review, one that continues to play a critical role in political discourse today. Although the evolution of the judiciary commenced following the fallout of the 1803 decision, the courts have delegated to themselves a controversial role as policy-makers in response to societal demands and stresses placed upon the political system specifically during and after the civil rights movement that occurred in the United States during the 20th century. This expanded role into the realm of actual policy making is derived from the belief that the constitution is indeed a living and flexible document that must retain the capability for change. As the

The consonant integrity of american citizens and their push for freedom, however, now carried a new significance. President Franklin D. Roosevelt began to envision true, certain freedoms as global concepts. Roosevelt divided these freedoms into four interpretations, that of which included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Although, some Americans supported Roosevelt's proposition, others only wished for social standards to revert to their venerable state. Many of these “freedoms” for example, were rather perceived as individual or personal freedoms that related to family and households.

For almost 200 years, the policy of this nation has been made under our Constitution by those leaders in the Congress and the White House elected by all of the people. If a vocal minority, however fervent its cause, prevails over reason and the will of the majority, this nation has no future as a free society (Episode).”