Patriot Act As An Examples Of Actions During Periods Of Potential Danger To The Nation

downloadDownload
  • Words 1593
  • Pages 4
Download PDF

There has been an ongoing debate within the country on if the government can limit certain individual rights during times, they see fit, in order to ensure the safety of the nation. The argument incorporates the concept of the Bill of Rights which was made to protect and guarantee individual rights. In the history of the United States there have been actions taken to suppress individual rights because of national threats. Schenck v. the United States, the Sedition Act, and USA Patriot Act are examples of actions during periods potential danger to the nation. I believe that during times where there are risks of danger to the nation it is wise to limit certain rights to protect the nation. If we limit certain rights and it results in our country becoming safer place, then we have done something right in my opinion. People who do not support this point of view believe that our rights are paramount and should not be adjusted or surpass regardless of the conditions at the time.

Opposers to the suppression believe that the government abuses and overrides the bill of rights. The Korematsu v. United States case is an example they often use because World War II was a period of uncertainty and great national fear. During those times the signing of Executive Order 9066 occurred. When the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor during World War II the United States government’s response was requiring Japanese Americans to move into relocation camps for the matter of national security the attack on Pearl Harbor had Americans fearing and not trusting Japanese Americans. They believed that whenever they had the chance they might be spying for Japan and could be possible of do great harm to America. Fred Korematsu was a Japanese American who lived in San Leandro and he fought against this order. He decided to stay in his residence than obey the order of relocation. He got arrested and convicted because he violated the order. He fought against his conviction with stating that the order was violating the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Courts deemed the Executive Order 9066 constitutional so that argument is invalid. The order was mainly to protect the Japanese from Americans who viewed them as the enemy out of fear for what had just happened.

Click to get a unique essay

Our writers can write you a new plagiarism-free essay on any topic

The government doesn’t limit our individual rights and claim it is for national security without proper reason. They must have proof in court that the nation is being put at risk without these rights being limited. The government makes our life and travel safer every day because of The Patriot Act. This is a bill that was passed in 2001 to enhance the United States’ ability to identify and prevent terrorism. The Patriot Act was passed by the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support and signed by President George W. Bush on October 26, 2001, which was more than a month after the devastating September 11 terrorist attacks in against the United States. The attacks tore the nation apart. It was a stab in the heart of our people. Due the tragedy the nation was now living in fear, doubting the government’s defenses and power. Congress had mainly focused on laws to stop terrorism before September 11, but after the April 1995 state capital bombing during which American’s blew up a federal building, terrorism gained more attention. President Bill Clinton authorized the Antiterrorism and Effective Corporal Punishment Act on April 24, 1996. The act made it simpler for law enforcement to spot and act against domestic and international terrorists. The government stood by its actions due to the active fear of another attack without the government having the power to defend the nation. This exact fear during this period of risk against the nation led to the passage of the Patriot Act.

During times of war or nation risk the first amendment must be limited to a certain extent. When invoking your freedom of speech during dangerous times like this you can hurt the image of the government which would then damage the honor people have for their country yielding lower men enlisting for the army. This was the exact case in the landmark Schenck v. the United States. In this case the Supreme Court stated the conviction of Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer due to violating the Espionage Act of 1917 by obstructing the enlistment service during World War I. The ruling recognized that Congress has more leeway in restricting speech during times of war than in peacetime and presented the clear and present danger test. This was an example in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. revealed that the most serious interpretations of the First Amendment would not protect a person who produces public alarm by yelling “Fire!” in a movie theater when there never was fire in the first place. Schenck and Baer were both representatives and leaders of the Socialist Party. They had been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for sending writing to recently enlisted soldiers suggesting that the draft for the army was a form of forced service that violated the Thirteenth Amendment. Justice Holmes agreed that the letter may have been protected by the constitution in several places during ordinary times, but he concluded that the spirit of the writing hinges on the situation in which it was completed. Holmes stated, “the question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” The writing that was distributed created a danger during wartime. Justice Holmes stood by his statement that it might lead men to decline to serve in the war or desert service. Abrams v. the United States was also another court case that featured censorship during wartime for the sake of the country. Jacob Abrams and four additional Russian refugees were living in New York City and they printed and circulated two flyers denouncing U.S. involvement in the Russian civil war with the communists. The pamphlets did not affect the ongoing war involving Germany. One flyer attempted to appeal to the workers of America by advocating an organized strike and an alternative action that included a call to arms if the United States intervened in Russia. Justice John Clarke declared the immigrants’ ruling to be 20 years in prison for disobeying the 1917 Espionage Act. Clarke utilized the clear and present danger test from Judge Holmes and the Schenck v. the United States case. The Espionage Act was a controversial one, but it saved the country from riots in the army and riots in civilians. This major decision in Schenck v. the United States and Abrams vs. the United States was just two of many creating a standard for regulating speech during wartime.

The government should be able to suppress individual rights only of course during legitimate periods of national danger. I don’t believe in the government abusing or sacred rights for their own personal reasons. This very apparent in the New York Times Co. v. the United States, also known as the Pentagon Papers, landmark supreme court case. The verdict in New York Times Co. v. the United States supported the First Amendment right of free press in opposition to restriction by the government. In 1967 the Secretary of Defense, at the time, Robert McNamara contracted a secret government analysis on American participation in the Vietnam war. When he completed it in 1968, the project encompassed 47 sections holding more than 7,000 pages. The whole analysis was considered classified, and because of that only 15 copies were produced. Daniel Ellsberg was a RAND Corporation member who had done work on the project. In 1971 he secretly made copies of the records and handed them to journalists who worked for the New York Times. The Times then began to publish these records labeled the “Pentagon Papers” on June 13, 1971 after numerous months of assessment. After the first three segments were distributed President Nixon’s administration cited national security matters to attain a restrictive order preventing further distribution of the Pentagon Papers. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals supported the order and the New York Times made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case the next day which was June 26. The Court released its judgments on June 30. The whole legal procedure had taken only 15 days to complete. The Court disbanded the restraining order and permitted New York to resume publication. The Supreme Court cited Bantam Books v. Sullivan, Near v. Minnesota, and Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe (1971), in their explanation. The primary opinion stated that “any system of prior restraints comes to this Court bearing a heavy presumption against its constitutional validity” and also said “the Government thus carries a heavy burden of showing justification for the imposition of such a restraint.” In this situation, the government neglected to sustain that burden.

The government needs the power to restrict individual rights during times of crisis. This is very necessary because if they don’t situations where someone is critiquing the government can get out of hand and cause unnecessary riots and turmoil as the supreme court has agreed. Some of our freedoms end up being abused by others who chose to intentionally go against the government and its plan for war which is a large threat to our country. The government only limited our rights to protect us and the nation at the same time.

image

We use cookies to give you the best experience possible. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy.