The American Civil Liberties Union appeared as a reaction to the excess of the Palmer Raids in 1918 after authorities arbitrarily arrested over six thousand people. Roger Baldwin and others founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau which became the ACLU in 1920. Its mission is to preserve constitutional rights and to continue to conserve America's original civic values. The ACLU reacted very early to the USA Patriot Act and other Civil Liberties violations which followed September 11, 2001. Two weeks after the attacks, it tried to influence Congress by forming a broad coalition of various groups seeking to warn government of any potential legislative excess called “In Defence of Freedom.” On September 20, the coalition released a statement …show more content…
When the two candidates (George W. Bush and senator John Kerry) met in the second televised debate, George Bush had to defend the Act by saying that “[FBI agents] told me they could not have performed their duty […] if they did not have the ability to communicate with each other under the Patriot Act.” Kerry counter-attacked by stating that “People’s rights have been abused. I met a man who spent eight months in prison, wasn’t even allowed to call his lawyer […] They’ve got sneak-and-peek searches that are allowed. They’ve got people allowed to go into churches now and political meetings without any showing of potential criminal activity or …show more content…
The Framers were in debate of governmental power because they were all too aware of the potential abuses deriving from it. They believed that a number of checks and restrictions on government were necessary to safeguard the basic liberties of their countrymen and governmental institutions should not be allowed to take away these rights. However, the Framers were divided as to how this should be put into practice. Federalists thought that limiting the power of government in the Constitution was in itself a sufficient check, while the Anti-federalists on the other hand demanded a guarantee in the form of amendments, detailing the fundamental liberties of the individual citizen. The subject of whether a national Bill of Rights was necessary or not had been overlooked in the Constitutional Convention of May 1787, it would prove crucial for the Ratification of the Constitution by the States. George Mason was the first to raise the question of a federal Bill of Rights a few days before the Constitutional Convention came to a close. At the time the creation of a Bill of Rights Drafting Committee was unanimously rejected by the delegates. This was to lead to the division between Anti-federalists opposing Ratification without a Bill of Rights and the Federalists who argued that such amendments were unnecessary. The Constitution was eventually ratified by the
Less than one week after the devastating terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S.A. Patriot Act was introduced to Congress. One month later, the act passed in the Senate with a vote of 98-1. A frightened nation had cried for protection against further attacks, but certainly got more than they had asked for. Russell Feingold, the only Senator to vote down the act, referred to it as, “legislation on the fly, unlike anything [he] had ever seen.” In their haste to protect our great nation, Congress suspended, “normal procedural processes, such as interagency review and committee hearings,” and, “many provisions were not checked for their constitutionality, lack of judicial oversight, and potential for abuse.” Ninety-eight senators were willing to overlook key civil liberty issues contained within the 342 page act. The lone dissenting vote, Wisconsin Senator Russell Feingold, felt that our battle against terrorism would be lost “without firing a shot” if we were to “sacrifice the liberties of the American people.” Feingold duly defended American civil liberties at the risk of his career, truly exemplifying political courage as defined by John F. Kennedy.
Both groups came to agreement and agreed that there needed to be a stronger authority requiring an independent salary to function. They both also agreed that they needed to raise safeguards against the tyranny. The anti-Federalists would not agree to the new Constitution without the “Bill of Rights.” The Federalists ended up including the Bill of Rights into the Constitution. The Bill of Rights protects the freedoms of people. It reassured the anti-Federalists the government could not abuse their power by taking it out on the people. The Federalists included the Bill of Rights to get the anti-Federalists votes and support in the Constitution to actually get it
The responsibilities would include managing debt, creating national monetary and fiscal policies, as well as managing the national tensions that lead to crisis. Men like Alexander Hamilton, George Washington and John Adams, were in favor of the Constitution, supported the Bill of Rights and subsequently, a larger more powerful federal government. In their views for support of a federal government they proposed the Constitution and later added the first ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (Lecture). While framing the Constitution issues taken into consideration were states boundaries, representation quotas and veto rights (Countryman 172). Two main plans were proposed to solve the plethora of issues facing the country – one by James Madison and one by Patterson. The fundamental differences was where the federal government derived their power. Patterson advocated for the federal to obtain their power from the states rather than the people, whereas Madison advocated for the power of the centralized government owing its power directly to the people (Countryman 178). After years back and forth conversations, a three tiered system was created that would ensure the integrity of the system by separation and complete independence from each other, thus listing specified duties and power allotted to the Legislative, Executive and Judiciary powers of the United States
All of the framer of the U.S. Constitution had one thing in common, they all felt that the government didn't have enough power. At the same time they didn't want to give the government to much power. They all knew if there was power to be held someone was going to hold it and over use it The framers didn't want to create a system like Britain or England.
Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the constitution: sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security. New York: New Press.
Anti –federalist believed that with out the bill of rights, the national government would became a to strong it would threating the americans peoples rights and libertys. Due to prior american revolution, ant-federalist did not forget what they fought for an believed that with a stronger national government, the president could become kind if he wanted. During this time people still feared a strong central government, due to british occupany of the states. Concidently the of people who wanted the bill of rights and were anti-federalist were famers and the working class, as to the fedarlist were extremely rich and powerful people Thomas Jeferson who was a active anti-federalist once wrote to james Madison A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular; and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences. (Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:388, Papers
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the strong foundation for the diverse country of Canada. They uphold various beliefs and values Canadians may have. Under the constitution in 1982, the CRF (Charter of Rights and Freedoms) was entrenched by then Prime Minister Trudeau. The CRF has 4 rights; Equality, legal, democratic and mobility, there is also 4 freedoms; of Conscience and Religion, of thought, belief, expression and media, of peaceful assembly, and Association. If people feel that their right and/or freedom has been violated, they can go to court by using a “Charter Challenge. ” A charter challenge is when something inequitable or unfair has been done, the citizen can pursue the court case stating that something violated their rights and/or freedoms. All the rights and freedoms help
Some historical circumstances surrounding the issue of the ratification of the Constitution was weakness of the new government under the Articles of Confederation which led to the Constitutional Convention. Members of Congress believed that the Articles of Confederation, the first government of the United States, needed to be altered while others did not want change. This desired Constitution created a huge dispute and argument between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The people who supported the new Constitution, the Federalists, began to publish articles supporting ratification. As stated in document 2 John Jay (Federalist) had many arguments to support ratification of the Constitution. One argument John Jay used was, with the ratification of the Constitution, he says, “…Our people free, contented and united…” The Antifederalists had numerous arguments they used to oppose the ratification of the Constitution. The Antifederalists believed that a free republic wouldn’t be able to long exist over a country of the great extent of these states.
Many complaints focused on the lack of a bill of rights in the Constitution, stating the inalienable rights of an American citizen. In Thomas Jefferson’s Jefferson Writings (Doc. C), he states that no government is entitled to omit such an important part of a country’s makeup. The reason a constitution is made is to protect the rights the people fought for during the Revolution, not limit them. Another concern is the balance of power between social classes and the governmental branches, which was a big issue with the Articles of Confederation. Even with checks in place so no branch of government could become to powerful, there was always a risk. In the “Brutus” and “John DeWitt” papers (Doc. D) it states that this unbalance of power could lead, disastrously, to one group dominating over all others, most likely the aristocrats. Some people, such as Patrick Henry during his Speech to Virginia State Constitutional Ratification Convention (Doc. F) even became heatedly anti-federalist, stating that the Constitution endangered to sovereignty of the states entirely. But even with these various concerns and arguments, the Constitution was ratified by all thirteen states in
Supporters of a constitution, lacking a bill of rights, were called Federalists. The Federalists included members such as Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, whom wrote a series of essays that were designed to inform and persuade the public of their views pertaining to the issues of the day. Among these views was whether a bill of rights should be added to the constitution. The Federalists, via Alexander Hamilton, dealt with this issue in a foremost way in their 84th essay. In the 84th essay Hamilton begins by explaining that a bill of rights, which are “in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.”
In the summer of 1787, delegates from the 13 states convened in Philadelphia and drafted a remarkable blueprint for self-government, the Constitution of the United States. The first draft set up a system of checks and balances that included a strong executive branch, a representative legislature and a federal judiciary. The Constitution was remarkable, but deeply flawed. For one thing, it did not include a specific declaration, or bill, of individual rights. It specified what the government could do but did not say what it could not do. For another, it did not apply to everyone. The "consent of the governed" meant propertied white men only. The Bill of Rights did not come from a desire to protect the liberties won in the American Revolution, but rather from a fear of the powers of the new federal government.
Since September 11, 2001 many people can say that America has changed. Many people question if America has changed for the better or has it just gotten worse. Since the day those four planes crashed around the United States people’s lives have been changed. Many may not realize how their lives have changed, but with new laws passed life is different within America. The United States Patriot Act is one of the laws passed after 9/11: singed into order on October 26, 2001 just 45 days after the attack. The United States Patriot Act was put in place in order to protect Americans, yet has been affecting American’s civil liberties and caused controversy all over the United States.
Schultz, David, and John R. Vile. The Encyclopedia of Civil Liberties in America. 710-712. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Gale Virtual Reference Library, n.d. Web. 18 Mar. 2010. .
The Patriot Act Pros and Cons is a topic that is much like a double-edged sword. On one hand many people feel they would like to be protected and feel that they will give up some ...
Upon his arrest, the ACLU took full responsibility for all monetary charges incurred during the course of the trial. The defense appointed the country’s greatest ...