After the Revolutionary War, our new country was in need of a national government that would unite our new nation. Our country was in the midst of an economic crisis and something needed to be done. The need for a centralized government was there, but the question was how much power should it be allowed.
During the ratification process of the Constitution, two political groups emerged. The Federalists were supporters of the new Constitution and the Anti-Federalists opposed it. Most Anti-Federalists believed that the Constitution gave too much power to the central government, thereby weakening the autonomy of communities and states. (Faragher, 2006, 214) The Anti-Federalist support prevented the Constitution from being ratified. The main issue was a amendment to the Constitution that would protect the people from potential abuses of the federal government. The promise of a Bill of Rights was important to the Constitution being ratified by five of the states. (Faragher, 2006, 216) There are ten amendments to the Constitution in the Bill of Rights, but do they effectively protect the people from excessive power by the federal government? The Fourth Amendment has been a recent topic that will be discussed.
According to the American Constitution, the Fourth Amendment reads; The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. How is it then that in recent times our federal government, more specifically President George Bush, has been able to violate this right?
Below is a link from a New York Times article that discusses President Bush's disregard for the Fourth Amendment. An excerpt from that article reads, "President Bush secretly authorized the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on Americans and others inside the United States to search for evidence of terrorist activity without the court-approved warrants ordinarily required for domestic spying, according to government officials." (NY Times, Dec. 16, 2005)
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/politics/16program.html
The Bill of Rights is over two-hundred years old, but it still applies to this very day. I think that the Fourth Amendment is one of the clearest and concise Amendments to our original Constitution, and I cannot understand how it could be openly violated. This issue makes me question whether our government has too much power, and whether there is a need for action. Our government has three branches that are suppose to be balanced, according to the Constitution, but that could be questioned in modern times. My question is, does the Bill of Rights effectively protect the people of this country from excessive power by the federal government, and, if not, how do we restore the balance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think the question in which you raised about the Bill of Rights and the amount of control the government has is certainly an important realization in reference to todays times. In fact the previous notion you made regarding the fact that the Constitional Rights were made over 200 years ago is a question in itself. I do beleive that there are some measures that need to be made regarding this fact, and perhaps this will be the beginning of a change. However, no matter what, it is important that we have some sort of structure within our country. Until the masses represent a higher mind, the idea of equality among socity is null and void, for there is a pscyhologoical web created within the dynamic of our country which extends far back in time. This is in effect for each individual family lineage, including the lineage of those in power. Quite ironic isn't it? For I suppose this is the concern in which we are dealing with in the first place. What a "Catch 22!!!"
This post asks whether the Bill of Rights effectively protects the people of this country from excessive power by the federal government, and, if not, how to restore the balance. This is a good question that legal scholars ask quite often. However, it is important to keep in mind the structural limitations of the federal government. While the 4th amendment may be concise, its contours are not always clear. In particular, the debate often lies in the phrase “unreasonable.” In fact, in the very article the post cited, the newspaper writer notes that the Bush camp believes that the tapping is, in fact, reasonable because the tapping is necessary: “The Bush administration views the operation as necessary so that the agency can move quickly to monitor communications that may disclose threats to the United States, the officials said.”
So while one person may not find these actions reasonable, it is something over which people can disagree. This is where the courts come in by way of checks and balances—if someone brings a case, they will hear it, and they will determine whether, as a matter of law, the tapping was reasonable or not. (While it might be nice to have the Courts strike down unconstitutional action without having to wait for a suit, the Constitution itself prevents them from doing so: The federal courts’ jurisdiction is limited to “cases” and “controversies” (US Constitution, Article III, Section 2), which means that they must wait until someone brings suit. They cannot give an opinion without there being a case to officially hear.
Juan Pablo Manriquez Zambrano
Post a Comment