We the People- Examination of the Relationship between the Government and Governed

Under the due process perspective, the government’s central goal is to maximize one’s freedom and protect people from unjustified government power. The due process perspective follows an “obstacle course”, meaning it is complex and only qualified legal professionals can navigate through it. The due process values seek to benefit suspects and puts emphasis on legal guilt. In addition, it seeks to maximize human freedom and to protect people’s rights at all costs. Lastly, due process favors formality over informalities in hopes of avoiding human error and presumptions. –Chapter 2 Pages

In society today many citizens feel violated with the security methods taken by homeland security. “On September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks against the United States marked the beginning of the global war on terrorism. The methods used are justifiable as they provide protection against possible threats or attacks. This attack on U.S. soil increased surveillance of both American citizens and foreign nationals” (Andrew, C., & Walter,

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

In this essay I will discuss the pros and the cons of the Patriot Act, how it affected the lives of US citizens and the world, and whether or not it fits within our democratic form of government. The Patriot Act was a rapidly drafted and approved Act of Congress which was intended to increase the security of US citizens by combatting terrorism. Although granting increased security to an extent, the Act was and still is extremely controversial due to certain parts of the Act limiting the freedoms of American citizens. The Patriot Act enhanced the government’s ability to spy on their own people, and with far fewer restrictions, so many people were and still are disgusted, but many others completely agree with it. Millions of people, billions across the world have a historical trend of being happy to sacrifice their freedoms for increased security. The controversy lies with how more safe are you in comparison to how much of your freedom you have to give up, and that compromise is weighed vastly different for individuals across the world. Did the Patriot Act save enough lives to warrant what it cost, or did it inhibit the lives of too many people to be allowed to continue. The answer will always be disputed and weighing each side will be a very difficult task.

The balance of civil liberties and law enforcement is a heated subject that has been in existence arguably since the inception of the United States (U.S.) Constitution. The primary protections granted to U.S. citizens from law enforcement can be found in Amendments II (2) and IV (4) of the Constitution. Amendment II outlines the rights of citizens to bear arms with the language allowing room for interpretation, for example a citizen’s potential right to defend themselves from other citizens and/or the government. Amendment IV places restrictions on police and their ability to conduct investigations, stating the need for a court-issued warrant to perform search and seizure of persons and/or property. Other Amendments place restrictions on the court and corrections branches of the

The law enforcement agencies and the government are given wide discretionary powers to acquire information not only from suspected people but also from the law-abiding Americans. After attacks of September, 11, the nation 's top most priority is to defend its citizen from the terrorists using all information in the areas of finances, religious organizations, health etc. The law focuses on improving the counterterrorism efforts of intelligence and law enforcement agencies of the United States. It is pertinent to mention that civil freedom of American citizens is not only important during wartimes but also in the period of peace, as such the Patriot

Often our nation sees as a symbol of freedom to the world; however, since the events of 9/11 the U.S congress signed into law the U.S Patriot Act. This legislation extends the power of the government by strengthening its oversight authority over the nation, claiming protection of the national security against potential foreign threats. As an American citizen, I agree with some of the terms and measures adopted under the Patriot Act in which the government needs to intercept, obstruct, and monitor terrorism actions keeping us safe from potential attacks without violating any of our civil rights. However, the act fails to secure American liberties, facilitating and encourages the government to become authoritarian with the pretext idea of national security purpose, exposing millions of Americans lives to serious and potential abuses of corruptions, fraud and discrimination by taking away our freedoms and liberty rights guarantee by the U.S Constitution, assuming that giving politicians authoritarian powers will make America a safer place to live. On the Other hand as a Law abiding citizen I’m not willing to sacrifice and been taking away my constitutional rights in exchange for national security purpose, because if we continue like that, we would be further away from an ideal democracy society, losing confidence and support to our government system that eliminates the American ideal of check and balance power for their own ends.

The attacks on the United States of America on September 11th, 2001 fundamentally changed the way the government and its citizens viewed freedom and liberty. With the subsequent enactment of the USA PATRIOT Act, security became the government’s top priority. (The USA PATRIOT Act is an acronym which stands for Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism.) Congress, eager to put a law on the books to prevent another attack, fast tracked the bill through both houses in six weeks. It passed by a near unanimous vote, with the majority of dissent coming from Democrats. A highly contentious and debated law, the USA PATRIOT Act infringes on Natural Law and the American citizen’s Civil Liberties. Also it violates the spirit and letter of the United States Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. Many amendments in the Constitution are at a direct contrast with the law’s many broadly worded sections, specifically the First Amendment’s right to free speech and freedom of assembly, and the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unwarranted and illegal search and seizure.

President Bush intended through legislation, to aid federal agencies in identifying potential terrorists and to ultimately protect this country from possible potential terrorist attacks in the future (Banks, 2010). Both individuals in power and ordinary citizens were greatly supportive of giving up certain liberties and privacy in order for the protection of the greater good. However, The Patriot Act was extremely controversial and advocates feared that power could be abused and that non-threatening citizens were being examined for crimes in which were not terrorist related (Sievert, 2007). Additionally, the most controversial aspect of The Patriot Act was the fear of privacy in relation to the first and fourth amendment (Xhelili and Crowne,

The USA Patriot Act was supposed to help the government find terrorists and prevent another attack, like the attacks on September 11th from happening again. However, there were many constitutional questions that surfaced with regard to the USA Patriot Act. The act gave the government more power than it had before September 11th. It allowed the government to put the rights of citizens aside, when the government thought that a person might be involved with terrorist activity. I will begin by discussing the contents of the USA Patriot Act and what questions might arise. I will then present some scenarios where the Patriot Act was used to justify the civil liberties of Americans being limited, and if the government’s suspicions were correct or

The USA Patriot Act of 2001 is a controversial public policy, which greatly undermines the civil liberties and constitutional freedom of the American people. This essay will moved from an overview of the USA Patriot Act to a review of the critical literature regarding the importance of the Act to the safety of Americans and shows how the Act violates the civil rights and liberties of citizens and noncitizens alike. After presenting sufficient evidence that the Patriot Act violates many of the basic principles that have been articulated in the U.S. Constitution, particularly within the Bill of Rights, I will, propose recommendations that if implemented scrupulously could help to restore American confidence in government's determination to

The authors maintain that in the face of wartime emergencies such as terrorism “we must adhere to the principles of political freedom, due process, and protection of privacy that constitute the core of a free and democratic society.” In opposition to Posner and Vermeule, they believe that judicial deference is damaging to our civil liberties as citizens, maintaining the constitution, and preserving the state. According to Terrorism and the constitution, deference to the executive is not only unnecessary, but it often leads to a reduction of our rights as citizens. The authors argue that judicial review has in fact protected our civil liberties from an expanding national security apparatus, which incorporates an ever-growing number of bureaucracies competing against each other, without using the constitution as a guideline. The authors look at a number of acts and programs such as the McCarthy-era McCarran-Walter act, the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, COINTELPRO, the Anti-terrorism act of 1996, and the Patriot act of 2001, to demonstrate how judicial deference has not made us safer but often more oppressed, and how the cost of the restriction of our civil liberties in the name of security has created an unequal balance damaging to liberty. A number of bureaucratic agencies such as the

In our government today we have due process of law. Due process of law simply means that we have protection against a chance deprivation of life, liberty or property. Within the due process law, if you are to be accused of something it has to be under fair and reasonable circumstances. If we are ever to be arrested of something, under due process it commands that we are taken to court and showed a cause. It is very important that we have due process in the law for the people of the United States. Law enforcement always requires the balancing of two competing social concerns: on one hand, is the government's interest in protecting its citizens and prosecuting criminal conduct; on the other hand, is the right of

The touchstone of our criminal justice system must be reasonableness. The rights of the accused are enumerated in our country's founding document and have become a bedrock of our criminal justice system. See U.S. Const. Amends. 4, 5, 6, & 14. E.g., Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961); Miles v. United States, 103 U.S. 304 (1880). Those fundamental rights consequently, and rightly, impose high burdens on government officials, such as police officers and prosecutors. See U.S. Const. Amend. 4 (enumerating individuals’ freedoms from unreasonable searches and seizures and setting forth the warrant requirement); Miles, 103 U.S. 304 (stating the government must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal cases). However, those high burdens must not be unreasonable ones as those officials have very important duties in our society and they must be able to effectively carry out those duties in order to keep our society safe. See Michigan v. Bryant, 562 U.S. 344, 346 (2011) (articulating police

“The consciousness of being at war, and therefore in danger, makes the handing-over of all power to a small caste seem the natural, unavoidable condition of survival” (Orwell). The world today is full of many dangers domestic and abroad. It has become a routine in the news to report on the daily mass shooting or update with the war on terror. We live in a world where being worried is justified; however, we should not give up our constitutional rights in the face of fear. The NSA’s dragnet surveillance programs, such as PRISM, are both ineffective and are surpassed by less questionable national security programs. The FISA court's’ approval of NSA actions are not only illegal, but exist as an embarrassing formality. Surveillance is a necessary