Does The Government Have Constitutional Power

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety," says Benjamin Franklin in Historical Review of 1759. Others tend to say just the opposite of what Ben Franklin quoted. With that being said, a key question comes up for discussion: Does the government have the Constitutional power to suspend the Constitution during a time of crisis? Certain documents were brought up for discussion that deal with certain articles from the Constitution and some acts/laws that the Congress passed to substantiate whether the government has certain powers. By using the U.S. Constitution, the Espionage Act, the Sedition Act, an executive order from President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and two federal Supreme
Court cases, it will be proven that the government DOES have certain powers during a time of crisis. In the past, the U.S. Congress has passed acts in a time of crisis for the safety of our nation. With this information being acknowledged many ask, "If the government had previous powers to do so?" One act that was passed was the Sedition Act of 1798. This law was passed due to a threat of war with the French. This act basically stated that no person should conspire or scheme any plans against the government. This includes conspiracy by mouth, actions, or any other way possible. Even though the Bill of Rights state that the people have the right to freely express themselves through speech, the government revised or revoked that amendment during that particular time. This act became null and void on March 3, 1801 which was stated in Section 4 of the Sedition Act. Another act that was passed through Congress was the Espionage Act of 1918 during World War I. This act says that no one should slander the name of the U.S. government nor the naval forces and the military. It also states that no one should speak, print, or publish anything disloyal or scurrilous concerning the U.S. as a whole during the time of war. These rules are located in Section 3 of the Espionage Act. This goes against the 1st Amendment which allows the freedom of expression through speech and press, but as you can the government still passed the act. The act wasn't repealed until the year of 1921. Two more important cases where the government exemplified their power is in the Supreme Court: Hirabayashi v. United States & Korematsu v. United States. The Hirabayashi v. United States case deals with both acts and the presidential or executive order. In both cases, the court ruled that although the Japanese were American citizens, they had to suffer the punishment that was given to them. The federal Supreme Court is the highest ruling court in the United States and they decide whether laws and acts are unconstitutional, so if they agreed with certain acts that were made, that's what the people shall abide by. The Supreme Court is the ultimate interpreter of the U.S. Constitution. With all of these documents being reviewed, the government did have past powers to pass certain acts. After reading the last section of this dissertation, you can see that the government did have specific powers under certain circumstances.
Now another question comes up: Does the government still have those certain powers? Technically, the government still has the power to do exactly what they did in the past seeing that no amendments or Supreme Court judicial reviews were passed to say that the government was wrong for doing such. In the United States Constitution: Article 1, Section 1 states some powers that the government has. One of those powers happen to be that the "The Congress shall have the power to ……… make rules for the government." This indicates that the governing body does have the power to pass acts and amendments. There aren't any limitations to what rules the government can make listed in this Article, but there are checks and balances over each branch in government. So what happens if all branches agree with the acts that are being passed? What if neither branch enforces a check on the other branch? The answer to those questions have not been decided yet. In Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution, it says that the Writ of Habeas Corpus can be suspended in cases of rebellion or invasion of the public safety. This contradicts Amendment V which says that everyone has the right to a just and speedy trial. This is an example on how bits and pieces of the Constitution cancel each other out under various circumstances. The President himself has his own personal
power to do certain things also. This is called an executive order which is a regulation that has the effect of a law. They are usually based on existing statutory authority and require no action by Congress or the state legislature to become effective. An example of such would be President Franklin D. Roosevelt's Executive Order 9066. This order says that the Secretary of War (Defense) and the military commanders may from time to time declare military areas and remove citizens from their place of residence, but Amendment III says that no soldier shall be quartered in any house in a time of peace, nor in time of war, but in manner to be prescribed by law. This means that if an executive order which has the effect of a law/act, this amendment will be temporarily thrown out or revised due to certain circumstances. No matter what, a president's executive order has not been repealed until he's out of office. This component of the editorial provides evidence that the government does and can exhibit their powers under any or certain circumstances. Now the most complex question comes to the air: What particular types of supremacy does the government hold?
Does the government only have military powers? Does the government only have the power to tax? Does the government only have the power to make rules for the government? The general answer to all of those questions would be yes. In the first article and section of the Constitution, it simply states that that the U.S. Congress has all of those affirmed powers. The government also has the power to limit certain rights during a time of crisis. If this statement was false, then the words "in time of peace" would not be in Amendment III of the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution clearly states that the government has the right to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States which is also located in Article 1, Section 1. This clearly signifies that if our nation is in danger, the government has the right to defend our nation at all costs; meaning, that if some rights should be revised or revoked for a period of time, that's what will happen! Of course the government has other several powers, but these are the ones that indicate what powers the government have in a time of
crisis. The government does have the right to temporarily suspend the Constitution under specific circumstances such as natural disasters, invasions, wars, and etc. It was verified that the government did have past powers to pass certain acts constitutionally. The Sedition Act of 1798, the Espionage Act of 1918 and two federal Supreme Court rulings proved such things. It was also documented that the governing body still holds certain powers to pass acts, amendments, executive orders, and Supreme Court rulings. No amendment was ever passed that the government couldn't do such things, so obviously it must not have caused too much controversy. It clearly states in the Constitution that the government has the right to make rules, and if the three branches of government place no checks and balances on each other, then nothing can be done about the situation. The governing body of the United States hold many powers. The ones that pertain to this thesis are the powers to make rules for the government and provide for the defense of our nation at any expense. This means that if some rights need to be invalidated or modified, then that's what will happen. As it was stated earlier, many tend to disagree with Ben Franklin's quote. The way most people feel is, " If you're not willing to sacrifice or temporarily give up certain rights in a time of crisis, then you deserve neither liberty nor safety." --- Quote from a high school student's DBQ assignment, 2006