It's Time To Replace The Bill Of Rights To The Government

It’s the fundamentals of our Constitution that the federal system must stay rooted in because if we allow our government to create a more secure environment in terms of terrorism then their may be another instance where they tighten the reigns or provide support involuntarily. Although it is the government’s responsibility to protect the nation, there are vast amounts of complimentary obligations such as the protection of human rights, civil liberties, and basic freedoms. Therefore, the government’s

The Bill of Rights is one of the most important things in the American government .The Bill of Rights has 10 Amendments. The fifth one however is one of the important one. The fifth Amendment deals with police procedures. Along with basic Constitutional limits, or in other words guidelines that Congress has to follow. The Fifth Amendment is a one of the most important Amendments because it gives people the rights to speech and privacy, the fifth doesn’t let people be charged with the same felony twice, and it gives citizens the right to a fair trial.

The Constitution of the United States was made through compromises that not everyone agreed on but they came to an agreement on what they thought it should be. Before all of the fifty states were founded there was not a Bill of Rights, it was not until the new government was up and running before the Bill of Rights was added. The reason for this was that the framers of the constitution did not realize that the Bill of Rights was necessary to have at the time. A certainly important choice that was made was how our government was to be

The Founding Fathers put their blood, sweat and tears into the making of the Constitution and created a government out of practically nothing, all while having a vision for the future. This future consisted of a government that focused on liberty over security; a government of minimal intervention. To say that the modern version of the United States government is exactly what the Founding Fathers envisioned is a very debatable topic. There are many instances where todays government has followed the Constitution for the most part, but then there are a lot of other areas where the Founders visions have been twisted to the point that they are unrecognizable anymore. To start off, the basic concept of the United States government is one of checks and balances. This was put in place to ensure that the government never became too powerful. One very good example of checks and balances is the media. Even the founding fathers knew the extreme power of the media and its ability to keep the government in check. Two men by the names of William Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer were even able to create the Spanish American War by the process of yellow journalism, or the crude exaggeration of events. The first amendment states that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” The government today reflects this belief that the media is a watchdog or “fourth estate” as it is so often referred to. Political parties and everything that comes with it, including

Since the beginning, America has been considered synonymous with freedom and new beginnings. The first revolutionaries fought with these ideals in mind and saw them as achievable goals, no matter how far away they actually were. Now years after, America has reached its goal and declared its independence from the tyrannical Great Britain. As the United States of America grows in both prestige and population, a strong and organized government is necessary for it to be as strong as it can be. A constitution such as the one being proposed will do exactly this, in addition to providing the nation with a purpose. Granted, there are many valid arguments against the Constitution being posed. However when considering the bigger picture, the Constitution will do more good than harm. Ultimately ratifying the new Constitution is the best option for America in its current situation in order to

However, you see on Document E the statement, “Many states demanded a list of rights to make sure individuals would be protected by the national government... Below are the Bill of Rights which were promised to the people if the Constitution was ratified” with examples like allowing citizens to bear arms and have freedom of speech. Even though the Constitution didn’t include the Amendments in the first place, it was still added later on, therefore the problem of not having a Bill of Rights that protects people’s rights ceased to exist. The other popular claim that there was too much power for the federal government is also countered by the fact that on Document D in which a chart of powers divided between the federal and state governments and the ones they share in a system called federalism. This means that power was being divided and not all of it was going to the federal government. Not to mention, the Constitution Video covered Shay’s Rebellion, which was a rebellion of poor farmers that were being unjustly taxed by the state. In that instance, the federal government couldn’t do anything since they didn’t have enough power to even tax. The US did try to let the states have a load of power, but that wasn’t even protecting the people’s rights since they were still being unfairly taxed.

In 1787, the Constitution of the United States was just written on September 17th. During this time, the common man was still under the power of the Articles of Confederation, a weak document that loosely connected the 13 former colonies. Although the Articles didn’t give the United States of America the strong centralized power that it needed, opposers to the new Constitution would argue that the Constitution took away the rights of the common man and gave that power, that the individual once had, to the federal government. Although this statement is correct, the federal government’s newly given power was used to protect the fundamental rights and liberties of its citizens and create a powerful government in the hopes that it would benefit

Writing the constitution was a very challenging and lengthy process. When state legislators received the Constitution for their formal approval, not everybody was hoping to sign it. Americans split into two separate groups. The groups consisted of those who supported the Constitution and those who felt other changes needed to be dealt with first. Those who supported the Constitution were known and Federalists and those who argued against it were known as anti-federalists. Although anti-federalists may have had some good arguments against ratifying the constitution, a stronger central government than what the Articles of Confederation provided was needed and supporting the constitution was good way to satisfy that need.

The United States had only been out of the revolutionary war for a few years and the call for a new government was growing more urgent. The constitution was drafted and some drafters thought that certain guarantees were necessary. They proposed a Bill of Rights so that the new government would not be able to become as tyrannical as the British one. However a Bill of Rights was unnecessary. Anti-Federalists were worried the government would take away the people’s rights. However Congress only has the power to do what is said it can do in the constitution, and nowhere is it stated that they can restrict the rights of the people. As James Wilson puts it “In a government like the proposed one, there can be no necessity for a bill of rights. For..

Perhaps the most deadly flaw in human nature is its insatiable desire for power. The acquisition and maintenance of power has been the subject of human thought ever since the dawn of its existence. From Caesar's overthrow of the Roman Republic in the first century to Hitler’s Third Reich in the twentieth century, history has repeatedly proven man’s incessant hunger for power. In an attempt to curve this weakness of man, the authors of the United States Constitution included a Bill of Rights in 1789 that limited the power of the United States government over its citizens. This document, as remarkable as it is, has proven unable to restrain those in power from overstepping their bounds. Leaders within the United States government have time, and time again, compromised on the laws this document instilled by dismissing their encroaches as acts to ensure national security of or general welfare, but for the purpose of increasing their dominion over those they obligated to

The rights of the people in America should not be infringed upon because these rights are guaranteed. And if abused, it not only infringes the rights of the people, but also diminishes the moral code of citizens of the United States. Furthermore, the civil rights that have protected people from the government now seem like they are being taken away from the government itself. The government has given itself the privilege to tap our phones, read and scan emails, access bank accounts, invade homes, and detain someone indefinitely. All of this is happening without any prior legal courses of action or our knowledge. This right to privacy, a fundamental liberty that is implied by the fourth amendment in the U.S. constitution, continues to be infringed upon by the government.

When the United States of America was first being formed in the late 18th century, the founding fathers were faced with evaluating what it meant to be a good government. They knew they wanted to base it on liberty, equality, and representation, but the process and purpose of the government is what they debated on. In president Thomas Jefferson's Inaugural Address, he said that "a wise and frugal Government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned." I agree with his point of view because the core purpose of government is to make sure other people and the government itself do not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of any person.

Yet, it is the government’s responsibility to

For generations, we as a society have evaluated what we call our freedoms, as they constantly continue to influence our quality of life. In the 1940s, President Franklin Roosevelt's Message to Congress promised the people of America Four Freedoms, or freedoms that are imperative to human life. These freedoms included freedom of speech, freedom of worship, freedom from want, and freedom from fear. Freedom of speech goes back to the first amendment where there is the liberty of expression. Freedom of worship allows people to practice any belief system they desire, as well as worship the God that they please. Freedom from want meant no citizen should have to yearn for the basic needs to survive, and should be provided with a standard living. Finally, freedom from fear meant for there to be no fear of having to use aggression against a neighbor, in addition to being granted peace and a sense of security. These were the guaranteed freedoms stated by the president for the future. However, as time progressed and certain events in history began occurring, these freedoms may have slipped from view and become less practiced. It is clear to see that the United States government did not effectively uphold these freedoms during, the time the U.S declared war against the Japanese, during the scare of Communism, and in the day to day life for citizens in minority groups.

There are always trade-offs when considering security. the question of the suspension of Liberty lies at the root of arguments concerning Homeland Security. Open nature of democratic societies make the social structure open to attack limiting silver Liberties is far more dangerous than more limited threats posed by terrorism. Decreasing civil liberties limits individual freedom and increases government power.