Nov 2

Issue: Bill of Rights RSS Civil Rights RSS Founding Fathers RSS National Security RSS

Striking the balance between liberty and security yesterday and today



Posted 2 years, 5 months ago.

By

In The Federalist No. 23, Alexander Hamilton described a government with awesome war-making powers.  The powers of “the common defense,” wrote Hamilton, “ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means which may be necessary to satisfy them.  The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed.”  Hamilton’s argument is at once perfectly rational and utterly terrifying.  A government must be able to defend itself and its citizens.  At the same time, if it can do so by any means necessary, it may end up sacrificing the freedom that it has been established to protect.

Alexander Hamilton (Wikimedia Commons)

When Hamilton wrote The Federalist No. 23, he did not envision a constitution that contained a bill of rights.  Indeed, most Federalists believed that a declaration of rights was unnecessary, but they pledged to adopt one in order to secure ratification of the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights guarantees certain fundamental liberties of the people, including free speech and press, peaceable assembly, and several important protections for accused criminals.

Despite these guarantees, when America goes to war—or appears to be on the verge of war—the war-making powers of the government regularly trump the Bill of Rights.  One need only recall the Sedition Act of 1798, Thomas Jefferson’s embargo, Andrew Jackson at New Orleans, the Civil War (in both the Union and the Confederacy), the two World Wars, or the McCarthy Era.  Presidents, Congresses, and the states have often limited the rights of some citizens—even if it meant “violating” the law—because they deemed such actions necessary to protect the nation.  As Lincoln famously argued on July 4, 1861, “Are all the laws, but one, to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated?”  In other words, the government must prioritize national survival in wartime because constitutional liberty would be worthless if there was no national government left to uphold the Constitution.

Hamilton’s argument is at once perfectly rational and utterly terrifying.

Strangely enough, this tension between national security and individual liberty is embedded in our fundamental law.  In a practical sense, the Bill of Rights is a “constitutional shackle” that has been placed upon the war-making power of the government.  As commander-in-chief, Lincoln understood this point intuitively.  Secessionists, he argued, had determined that “in their own unrestricted effort to destroy Union, constitution, and law, all together, the government would, in great degree, be restrained by the same constitution and law, from arresting their progress.”  Lincoln specifically noted that northern Democrats opposed his war policies “under cover of ‘Liberty of speech’ ‘Liberty of the press’ and ‘Habeas corpus.’”  Thus, Lincoln perceived the Bill of Rights as a constitutional shackle that impeded his ability to wage the war effectively.

Teachers’ Corner

Here is a list of questions for your students:

  • James Madison argues in Federalist No. 51 that “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” How does this article illuminate Madison’s argument?
  • What do you think is more important, national security or individual freedom? How should schools strike this balance?
  • To further elaborate on their answers to the question above, have students explore this easy-to-use website highlighting the Federalist-Antifederalist debates.

Few Americans today will question the wisdom of the Anti-Federalists for insisting on a bill of rights.  Nevertheless, the inclusion of these guarantees in our founding document has caused something of a paradox in American society and law.  The first ten amendments to the Constitution protect our individual liberty at the same time that they “shackle” our leaders’ ability to protect us and our rights as a collective.  For more than two centuries Americans have sought to resolve this contradiction by attempting to strike a balance between liberty and security.  In truth, a satisfactory balance will always remain elusive.  So long as the nation faces emergencies, the Hamiltonian-Lincolnian interpretation of the Constitution will almost inevitably prevail.  But even as it does, the Bill of Rights remains an ever-present reminder of why the nation is worth preserving.

Jonathan W. White is an assistant professor of American Studies at Christopher Newport University and a fellow at CNU’s Center for American Studies. His new book, Abraham Lincoln and Treason in the Civil War: The Trials of John Merryman, was just published by LSU Press.

 



Comments:

Comments

  1. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  2. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  3. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  4. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  5. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  6. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  7. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  8. The bill of rights is what makes the U.S country #1. It pressures our leaders to work so hard to utilize a small amount of power that they can’t get drunk with power and negatively impact the people. The people of a country reflect upon our nation and as long as they have their bill of rights they will be happy and our country will continue to thrive.

  9. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  10. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  11. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  12. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  13. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  14. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  15. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  16. Although many others would argue against it, I believe that having the Bill of Rights as a “constitutional shackle” is a fundamental aspect of American politics. Although it may seem easy to throw the rights aside in a time of war, those rights are there for a reason. However, I agree that finding a balance where both parties will be satisfied will forever remain elusive.

    - TD

  17. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  18. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  19. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  20. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  21. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  22. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  23. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  24. Although the Bill of Rights is often seen as a “constitutional shackle,” it was definitely necessary to add at the time, and remains necessary today. The public’s civil liberties are often jeopardized during times of war or national crisis, however, the argument can always be made as to the Constitutionality of restricting public liberties. In this manner, the people who pressed for the inclusion of the Bill of Rights ensured that Americans for centuries to come would be able to enjoy those rights that they viewed as most essential and basic.

  25. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  26. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  27. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  28. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  29. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  30. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  31. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  32. The tension between civil liberties and the wartime power of the government has, as you said, been continuous throughout American history. That is because both are necessary and important to the preservation of the United States. The Bill of Rights sets this country apart from the many others in the world. In the same way, the wartime powers that our nation affords to the President and the military are just as necessary. This highlights the need for us, as citizens, to put into office those who will act wisely, keeping this balance in mind, during times of crisis and trouble.

  33. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  34. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  35. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  36. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  37. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  38. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  39. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  40. The “constitutional shackle” appears unnecessary to some, but I think it’s important to have that as a reference for checking the powers allotted to the government and also to check the rights given to the people. It’s interesting that the Bill of Rights, though it is viewed as a “shackle” can be ignored in times of war. It seems to me that the Bill of Rights only serves as a restraint in times of peace. When in war many have skipped over some rights in order to preserve the nation.

  41. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  42. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  43. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  44. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  45. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  46. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  47. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  48. Though the Constitution occasionally hinders the government as they try to protect our country, it is necessary to have a code that guides the government’s actions. If the Constitution is not there preserving the rights of the people in a time of war, what is it exactly the war is being fought over in the first place? If all of the rights of the people are taken at a time of war, we are no longer protecting the people of this country but instead a faceless “America.” However, those who made the constitution could never foresee any of the circumstances in which the government is placed at a time of war, and as a result these rules may be bent if necessary for the greater good of the country.

  49. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  50. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  51. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  52. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  53. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  54. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  55. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  56. I find myself agreeing with Hamilton in which that there should not be any “shackles” keeping our leaders from making decisive and necessary actions during a time of war. What Hamilton says is true, “it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies”. National security is of utmost importance and if that means taking away a few civil liberties than so be it.

  57. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  58. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  59. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  60. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  61. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  62. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  63. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  64. While I will admit to the fact that the Bill of Rights can be a constitutional shackle during times of war, it is one of the main documents that has made this country into the free democratic nation that it is today. The Bill of Rights stands almost as an extra checks and balance for our government when making decisions. I would argue that while the American people will fight to protect their nation, they will fight even harder to protect their civil liberties and rights.

  65. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  66. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  67. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  68. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  69. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  70. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  71. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.

  72. As stated, it is specifically during times of war that civil liberties are often restricted. Thus, it must be remembered that the said “trumping of the Bill of Rights” is merely a temporarily act of national security and liberties are returned to the people at the end of wartime. Additionally, with respect to the article “At War with Civil Rights and Civil Liberties”, we can observe that in such times the Bill of Rights is not disregarded, but in fact, expanded. Voting rights for African Americans and women were both granted during times of war. Therefore, I would argue that people exaggerate the severity of their loss of rights. During wartime, restriction is temporarily, necessary, and often results in even more rights for the people.