• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How effective has the US been at defending civil liberties at a time of heightened security?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

´╗┐James Prentice ________________ How effective has the US been at defending civil liberties at a time of heightened security? The constitution was written to ensure that civil liberties would be protected at all times, especially when the security of the nation was threatened. There is emphasis on the importance of protecting civil liberties during a national crisis, not because civil liberties become more important but because they become more vulnerable. Most governments do not like to meddle with civil liberties, not only because of their particular ideologies but because it is tremendously unpopular with the public. However, some governments become tempted to do so in times of heightened security. They are tempted to alter or ignore the civil liberties of a few to save the masses. Civil liberties which are mostly spelt out in the Constitution, guarantee the protection of persons, expression and property from arbitrary interference by the government. The United States Constitution, especially its Bill of Rights, protects civil liberties. The passage of the Fourteenth Amendment further protected civil liberties by introducing the Privileges or Immunities Clause, Due Process Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. During the civil war President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus. Habeas corpus is a writ (legal action) which requires a person under arrest to be brought before a judge or into court. ...read more.

Middle

Then, in Hambi vs. Rumsfeld, the Court built on the Rasul decision to rule that one of the specific constitutional protections to which detainees were entitled was to challenge their detention before and impartial judge and declared that ?a state of war is not a blank cheque for the president when it comes to the rights of the nation?s citizens?. This is a great example of the US defending civil liberties during a time of heightened national security. Also, the administration of George W. Bush set up military tribunals to provide a judicial mechanism for the detainees. When it was challenged, in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld, the Court ruled that the detainees could not be subject to military trials without the specific authorisation of Congress. It is unwise to make definitive judgements about the Roberts era after just four terms. However, on the basis of early indications the main trend has been for the Roberts Court to move in incremental, or minimalist, steps towards an originalist understanding of the Constitution on the country?s most controversial issues. Another way of looking at the early years of the Roberts Court is, as the New York Times put it, that the Constitution ?means what Justice Kennedy says it means?. ...read more.

Conclusion

The Bush administration responded with a strategy that included two elective wars, illegal surveillance, indefinite detention without trial of both citizens and non-citizens, torture, secret prisons, ethnic and religious profiling, infiltration and intimidation of activist groups, dereliction of multiple international human rights agreements, and support for brutal pro-U.S. dictators overseas. In my opinion civil liberties in the US are under threat too often. Many argue it is acceptable to temporarily suspend or alter laws regarding civil liberties during times of heightened national security. However, the executive often abuses this, for example, using the situation as an excuse for illegal surveillance or more importantly threatening civil liberties when the national security is not in danger. This has understandably led to general mistrust of the executive. This is something Tom Heard, a civil liberties expert, feels strongly about, ?Never trust the president, no matter who the president is. This cardinal rule of government was central to the Founding Fathers' thinking when they drafted the Constitution, but even they lived to see George Washington transformed into demigod status by biographers. Never trust the president. This is what Americans learned after Watergate, and it is the lesson we as Americans should be learning now. Never trust the president. It is a lesson that the Obama administration will teach us, just as the Bush administration has.? ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level United States section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level United States essays

  1. To what extent has the Constitution protected civil liberties in America?

    The Supreme Court has dealt with cases involving the freedom of press such as, in the New York Times (NYT) Vs United States (1971). The court upheld the right of the NYT to publish the so-called 'Pentagon Papers' which were secret defence papers concerning the Vietnam war.

  2. Is The US Constitution Too Rigid To Be Effective?

    After the amendment is passed through Congress Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it.

  1. Has the US Constituion Protected Individual Liberties?

    The US sees 26 times as many murders carried out by gun shootings than the UK, a country which has much stricter regulations on gun ownership. Surely each individual in the US should have a right to security, however, this security is undermined by the second amendment.

  2. Using Suetonius and Res Gestae, assess how effective Octavian was in enlisting Senatorial Support ...

    He had manipulated the Roman constitution too far and had effectively become a dictator. The conservative senatorial class resented this. As the Roman Constitution was semi-democratic, to get a high position the plebeians (commoners) needed to vote a candidate into office.

  1. Critically analyse the appointment and confirmation process for nominees in the US Supreme Court

    The media too have been criticised for conducting ?feeding frenzy?s? often concerned with matters of little relevance to the nominee?s judicial qualifications. Blowing the allegations made by Anita Hill out of proportions. The media chosen to compete over who should come up with the most lurid allegations and the most tasteless details.

  2. Assess the view that the US Constitution often ensures limited government

    Reagan withdrew the nomination[14]. The second check is the power to pardon. The executive can withdraw any charges to a person.

  1. '9 politicians sitting on a bench.' Critically evaluate this description of the US Supreme ...

    The Burger Court was another judicially activist Supreme Court, led by Warren Burger. In the case of Roe v Wade (1973), they decided that abortion was constitutional and part of a woman?s implied right to privacy[8].

  2. Are Civil Liberties and rights better Protected In the US or UK?

    important as decisions and rulings may change from state level to supreme level in which a decision can be overturned in which can dictate either way if civil rights and liberties are protected. In the USA there are several different levels of court from Federal District Courts to the Supreme

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work