The principles of government freedom have not been established throughout history as they are understood today, Pre-US Colonists sought to enroot a legal system that keeps a respectful government regard for citizens, which British Parliament had previously failed to secure The US Constitution establishes limits for the Government, with emphasis on equal respect for individual people and their beliefs. It acts as a manifesto and prelude for the Bill of Rights, Colonial Federalists and anti-Federalists had fundamental disagreements on how the Constitution should be applied. Federalists believed that the Constitution was fully sufficient, and argued that future amendments would undermine the validity of federal authority Anti- Federalists heavily disagreed with this, as the Constitution left too many broad discrepancies when applied to more specific circumstances, like individual legal rights or government regulations.
The anti-Federalists won, as the Federalists’ political view harmonized with the conservative Parliamentary philosophy that the Colonists had actively tried to avoid reinstating. The Bill of Rights was well-scripted and addressed the then-most prevalent issues of human rights infractions. However, the points made were with much regard for philosophies and religious persecution, and very little attention was given to less related economic issues such as slavery, common wages, housing, marketplace production, sale regulations, and so forth. Shay’s Rebellion was a particular consequential exploitation of this counterproductive short-sight, Be it true that the Bill of Rights was far from an exhaustive ruling of human rights and liberties, we find through the course of history that more short-sights become exploited and rectified (or, at least, rectification was attempted).
The Federal Government came to realize that the nuances of the US Constitution would necessitate future legislative interpretation in order to address new legal rights conflicts, Thomas Jefferson personally stated with regard to Constitutional interpretation; “The Constitution belongs to the living”, as he understood that human rights issues and controversies will continually evolve with an ever changing culture His intentions and reasoning were sound, but the country as a whole seemed to take a few steps backwards when putting this into practice. Early colonial lawmakers would debate over the status of citizen voting as a federal right or privilege, One such lawmaker, Andrew Keyssar established; “Indeed, the records of the federal convention and state constitutional conventions suggest that most members of the new nation’s political leadership did not favor a more democratic franchise”, regarding voting as a state jurisdiction, not federal.
127 our experts are availableright now
This opened the floodgates for cases like 1792, when Kentucky’s Constitution dictated that a criminal record may be used to restrict the right to vote (which makes selective voter rights possible with a broad enough criminal criteria). Civil liberties have, historically, received relatively little legal priority. This is especially so in light of Civil Rights agendas and their social demand for political allocation. Historical government inaction could also be easily interpreted to be a reflection of their avoidance and even resistance to adapt to public liberty demands. As a result, Civil Liberties have made remarkably slow historical progression, with most landmark Civil Liberty cases taking place within the last century. The Judicial System was marginally effective in its prosecution of criminals, but many methods were eventually rooted out as criminal prosecution proved to be invasive, coercive, biased, and generally dishonest.
Mapp v. Ohio (1961) declared it unconstitutional to use improperly/illegally obtained evidence to criminally prosecute, as it was found to be in direct violation of the 4‘” amendment. Legal disregard by police is still prevalent today as it happened with Dollree Mapp, but her case gave US citizens the legal footing to maintain their constitutional liberty as established by the 4‘“ amendment. Miranda v, Arizona (1966) declared it unconstitutional to interrogate a suspect without their prior expressed awareness of executable rights as outlined by the 5’“ amendment This includes that a detained (or otherwise) suspect is not by default required to answer police questions without a representative lawyer, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963) declared that by the 6‘” amendment, a defendant is entitled to legal representation in a criminal court case, and it must be provided by the government if the defendant cannot afford it.
Thanks to this case, defendants (whom legally cannot be reasonably expected to aptly defend themselves) can still be given a proper defense. Modern-day US citizens are often prideful over their legal rights, but even more often don’t actually understand what they entail, Police overreach was a central problem that the Founding Fathers had attempted to curb, but public ignorance of enforceable citizen rights has given a de facto free reign to assert arbitrary authority over unsuspecting citizens. A common example would be citizen police surveillance by cell phone. Law enforcement officers typically will disregard a citizen’s rights to record with a cell phone by demanding it be handed over or forcibly removing the recording device from said citizens’ person, This directly conflicts with Glik v. Cunniffe (2011) and Riley v. California (2014). An example of the US Government‘s modern attempt to give themselves legal footing to surpass constitutional rights is the PATRIOT Act.
This was sensationally proposed with mongered fear over the then-recent 9/11 terrorist attack. The bill was passed without literally anyone in Congress reading it, and it entails the invasion of privacy of US Citizens, It’s justified as a part of the search for terrorists in the name of public safety, but the criteria for a suspected terrorist is broad enough to selectively spy on virtually any citizen “legally“i Another disproportionate cost-benefit result of the PATRIOT Act is the fact that TSA agents have intercepted absolutely zero terrorists, but hundreds of TSA agents have been found guilty of theft on the job. The bill was not passed informatively, completely disregarded Constitutional rights of privacy, and proved itself counterproductive and fully dysfunctional.
Security does not suffice as a reason to sacrifice libertyi As Benjamin Franklin said, “those who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither”. Most Civil Liberties as American Citizens have them are well established and enforced, but are wildly taken for granted and typically misunderstood, Laws have developed greatly to align with human rights, but a public lack of education and awareness leaves a huge predisposition to unknowingly forgo their own rights The US Government has a history of pushing and testing their legal boundaries, a trend that has continued today, so public unawareness is problematic This is especially so considering politicians are typically financially sponsored by corporations with motives, This conflicts some with the principles of free speech, as this puts a monetary value on ideas, not inherent value. This type of information should not be withheld from the public, as free speech does not mean there is not accountability to be held.
A proposed solution, besides equally funding all running politicians, would be to have politicians wear discernible labels of their sponsors, and display sponsor labels with their publicly displayed name. This could better inform the public of where politicians are coming from, but there are likely better solutions still. The status of civil liberties is complicated, but nonetheless important to be made aware of. The primary issue today is lack of public political awareness, so widespread personalized objective education would be conducive to the most well structured society possible, and gradually resolve most issues seen today.
