Preview

Should Civil Liberties Be Restricted During Times of War

Better Essays
Open Document
Open Document
1571 Words
Grammar
Grammar
Plagiarism
Plagiarism
Writing
Writing
Score
Score
Should Civil Liberties Be Restricted During Times of War
During America's most consequential wars, the United States government has restricted civil liberties of the American people despite the nation’s strong rooted foundation for preserving every citizen’s rights. When danger is an ever present factor for the nation due to war or conflict restrictions are often placed on some of the most basic freedoms and liberties. Perfect balancing of these restrictions is vital to the countries wellbeing. One of the most well-known examples of this type of restraint is Abraham Lincoln’s precedent of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus and issuing martial law. Lincoln’s actions clearly violated the rights of the people that are guaranteed to them under the Constitution. While out of context it wouldn’t make much sense, the specific circumstance’s Abraham Lincoln was facing completely justified his unconstitutional orders. In retrospect we can now see how important Lincoln’s decisions were; If not for his actions the union may never have won the Civil War and history would have been irreparably altered. History repeated itself when following in Lincoln’s footstep’s, President Franklin D. Roosevelt authorized the internment of over 100,000 people of Japanese descent in response to Japan’s attacks on the Pearl Harbor Naval Base. The country was in a state of panic and a response was needed to make Americans feel secure. Less than five decades later a similar attack devastated America. Similar to Roosevelt, George W. Bush was catapulted into taking responsive action after the September 11th terrorist attacks on U.S soil. His response was the Patriot Act. It was our founding fathers intentions for the people of these United States to be sheltered by liberty and freedom, however, it’s clear that later day presidents used a strong balance of discretion and justice for the sake of a greater good and national security. The government should be able to impede certain civil liberties should the situation arise where it is necessary as long as

You May Also Find These Documents Helpful

  • Powerful Essays

    POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror…

    • 36699 Words
    • 107 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Satisfactory Essays

    POL 201 Entire Course

    • 159 Words
    • 1 Page

    POL 201 Week 5 Final Paper Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror…

    • 159 Words
    • 1 Page
    Satisfactory Essays
  • Powerful Essays

    The practical application of the defence power in an age of terrorism is difficult to determine, as it is reliant upon a set of circumstances that can have a plethora of different interpretations from a range of variant perspectives. Unlike some other powers, the defence power is purposive and elastic; it waxes and wanes, and its application “depends upon the facts, and as those facts change so may its actual operation as a power”[1]. Recent developments, such as the Thomas case, have led some theorists to comment that “the elastic of the defence power has become stretched all out of proportion”[2]. In its present interpretation, the defence power is no longer simply fixed on an external aggressor. Instead, the enemy is disguised domestically. It no longer depends upon judicial notice, or requires an expression of proportionality “in a context where the fact of war or piece is important”[3]. However, the reasoning behind this breed of jurisprudence is hard to decipher. The balance between liberty and safety seems to be somewhat askew. In this essay, I will attempt to argue that the defence power is, at least in its present reincarnation, excessively aggressive and at odds with other constitutional guarantors to freedom of speech.…

    • 2092 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Powerful Essays
  • Best Essays

    The war on terror presents an unpredictable challenge for the United States. Throughout history, the motivation of man’s self-interest has concluded in the domination of those with little or no power. Habeas Corpus is written in the constitution as a right of the people and should be a safeguard to protect all accused persons, but many presidents have found ways not to enforce the right. In history the writ of habeas corpus has been challenged by many president from Lincoln to most recently Bush with abuse of power by the president. I will exam whether the president goes against the constitution to protect the safety of its citizens in a time of war or is it an abuse of power because the president is the commander and chief. Is the president acting on behalf of the people or is it a personal agenda.…

    • 1396 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Best Essays
  • Good Essays

    This law allows the president to send the military into action against anyone deemed a terrorist, essentially making it a “blank check” justifying any military action. The Founders would be astonished by this act, as it gives the President almost unlimited authority to use the military. They expected Congress to rein in the President on military matters, as the Constitution only authorized military appropriations for two year periods which was intended to keep the President from permanently supporting an army.2I also believe the Founders would disapprove of the idea of the “legislating president.” While executive orders have been issued by almost every President, they have always been criticized as increasingly violating Congress’ power to make the laws. The line between making laws and enforcing them has been blurred as presidents choose to enforce laws differently. While the presidency was given several specific powers, the Take Care clause has been interpreted to mean that the President may enforce laws however he sees fit, greatly expanding presidential…

    • 435 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    The recent September 11th attacks have caused many Americans to wonder about the personal sacrifices to be made in order to keep the nation "safe and free." With mixed results, it has become a common practice throughout history to restrict personal freedoms in the name of national security. Many questions arise from this process: Where is the line drawn? If liberties are restricted do they ever truly return? If it is true that we are doomed to repeat history if we fail to learn from it, an examination into the circumstances of the Japanese American internment in 1942 may inform the ways to most effectively deal with the security concerns faced by Americans today.…

    • 522 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In times of crisis, the United States has a tendency to limit the Constitutional civil liberties granted to its citizens. This has been the practice since the foundation of the country itself, seen in times of war, famine, depression, or even in times of mass-panic. However, as time progresses, the question of whether or not the restriction of rights granted in the Bill of Rights is, in fact, justified. Alan Brinkley, in both his essay Civil Liberties in Times of Crisis and his book American History: A Survey, explores the history of the suppression of freedoms during troubling times for the country. His conclusion, that the US government goes in excess what the crisis warrants while limiting liberties, is well-supported, using evidence from the “140 years of silence”, World War I, and the Red Scare to argue his…

    • 799 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Habeas Corpus prevented the government from accusing and arresting people for no valid reason and it was unconstitutional for Lincoln to suspend it. The Supreme Court ruled the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus as unconstitutional by saying, "the attention of the country has been called to the proposition that one who is sworn to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed,' should not himself violate them." Lincoln argued that he had a right to suspend the writ of habeas corpus because " the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, shall not be suspended unless when, in the cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it." What better crisis is there then a time of war, and because Lincoln never accepted the states' secession, he viewed the war as an act of rebellion. By viewing the war as an act of rebellion, Lincoln was well within the right of the constitution to suspend the writ of habeas corpus.…

    • 1308 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Red Scare Essay

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages

    Civil rights in the United States were limited in some ways during World War I, mainly because of the government’s attitude toward the war. As stated by President Wilson, “American involvement in the World War I as a crusade not for national aggrandizement, but to ‘make the world safe for democracy.’” (1) However, the democracy in American home land seemed not to be well protected. As one of the most controversial law in the American history, The Espionage Act of 1917 “prohibited not only spying and interfering with the draft but also ‘false statements’ that might impede military success.” (2) This act grants the government power to limit the freedom of speech, preventing individuals from saying negative opinions toward America’s involvement…

    • 420 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Essay On Stop And Frisk

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages

    The Founding Fathers believed that the sanctity of individual rights must be held above all else, due to their prior experiences with the tyrannical rule of King George III of Great Britain. After the drafting and ratification of the Constitution, the United States government has introduced several laws and allowed several actions that compromise the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution in the supposed name of security or the general welfare. These laws include the Espionage Act which was introduced during World War I, and the use and allowance of ‘Stop and Frisk’ procedures amongst America’s various police agencies. The introduction and use of these laws and procedures were meant to keep the American public safe following outbreaks of war and to try and prevent weapon related violence, but they also compromise the liberties that are ensured to the…

    • 771 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    It is said that it is necessary to infringe upon civil liberties during wartime. For example, Abraham Lincoln suspended the right of habeas corpus during the Civil War. Similar to that situation, there was a multitude of violations on civil liberties during the first world war. This is due to the fact that before being able to officially enter the first World War, it was necessary for the United States government to rally a lukewarm citizenry into a pro-war spirit. Once achieved, it was mandatory to maintain enthusiasm for the war until peace was reached. The United States government decided that in order to do so, it was necessary to violate the civil liberties of those who were perceived as public enemies: German-Americans, war opponents,…

    • 961 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Better Essays

    Vetting System

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages

    In February 19, 1942 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9066 which authorized the internment of of tens of thousands of Japanese American citizens. The constitutionality of which was questioned by every level of the courts. The federal and supreme courts involvement in cases such as Hirabayashi, Korematsu and ex parte Mitsuye Endo swayed and sometimes contradicted the constitution that birthed our nation. In our modern day, we are faced with a similar circumstance. Our 45th President, Donald J Trump campaigned on the promise of a travel ban that would halt the immigration of seven dominantly muslim countries for six months in order to form a proper vetting system for the refugees leaving the terrorism plagued sector…

    • 1100 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Better Essays
  • Good Essays

    Japanese Internment

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages

    Although the reasoning of the President and the federal government may seem valid, many civil and constitutional rights were violated with Executive Order 9066. Habeas corpus was a right given to…

    • 720 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    Bibliography: www.archives.gov The United States Constitution www.epic.org “USA Patriot Act Page” 10/24/2001 www.nolan chart.com The Patriot Act www.ushistory.org “The Electric Ben Franklin” copyright 1999 www.youtube.com Documentary Unconstitutional: The War on Civil Liberties 6/12/2007 David Cole and Jules Lobel- Are We Safe? Los Angeles Times: Opinion 11/18/2007…

    • 592 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Good Essays
  • Good Essays

    In modern times we view America as a thriving nation at the top of the power rankings amongst countries. Such supremacy is found not through the weapons of mass destruction but instead in the people living in a free society. The idea of free society can be related to the first amendment found in the constitution which enforces the idea of freedom. The first amendment is vital to functioning of a free society. Justice Robert Johnson once said, “No official can prescribe what can or can not be orthodox.” In other words, no American, despite their rank or command in office, shall be the decider or in charge of the people’s freedom. It is such freedom in which causes American citizens to think in a free society which…

    • 1033 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Good Essays