Editor's note: For its 10th annual Amador County Bill of Rights Essay Contest, the Democratic Club of Amador County asked participating high school students to answer, "Which of the rights guaranteed to you by the United States Bill of Rights would you be willing to surrender to achieve security and why?" Below is an edited version of Emily Fragapane's first place essay.
Should citizens be willing to surrender some of their rights for safety's sake? On the contrary, citizens should guard their rights all the more jealously during times of national panic and crisis. As James Madison wrote, "Crisis is the rallying cry of a tyrant." Fundamental human rights should not be sacrificed to achieve security, for by its nature internal corruption is more destructive than external dangers.
The founding fathers had numerous reasons for including the Bill of Rights in the Constitution. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the right to a speedy and public trial, habeas corpus rights - the founding fathers had witnessed these fundamental human rights threatened by European governments. For this reason they decided that it was critical to amend the new constitution with specifically enumerated rights, assured for all citizens. As such, it is unlikely that they would condone any infringement upon these rights. Although our rights have been threatened throughout history, the framers foresaw this possibility and attempted to provide against it. Clearly, their efforts have been successful: Over two centuries the constitution, the Bill of Rights and, thus far, our rights, have remained fundamentally intact.
Yet they are under assault.
Recent controversial legislation, such as the Patriot Act and others like it, have infringed upon the very Bill of Rights. Though it has been threatened before and still remains, recent attacks have come during incredibly trying times and by more subtle means, under the banner of "national security."
It is true that the importance of American safety should not be undermined, and that the Bill of Rights can inhibit the government's actions regarding prisoners, suspects and the like. With fewer restraints regarding the treatment of prisoners and interrogation methods, perhaps a few more terrorists could be stopped or a theft prevented. If no warrant was required for search and seizure or wiretapping, perhaps a criminal could be caught or a terrorist's strategy thwarted. If citizens were not allowed to protest peacefully, then perhaps a radical minority group could be shut down before it gained any foothold. There is indeed merit in the argument that decreased freedom means increased security from international threats. But these are policies generally associated with fascism, monarchy and other dictatorships, which may indeed guard against external dangers but demand the view that the government will never abuse a person's natural rights.
Indeed, history has rarely shown favorable results when human rights are impaired; restrictive governments have not historically promoted domestic tranquility. There is, in fact, a greater chance of hurting the innocent majority than the guilty minority when there are no limitations to the government's authority. This begs the question: What price are we willing to pay for external and, in many ways, superficial security?
It is virtually impossible for democracy in America to be overthrown with one blow, but all this means is that time would be most damaging to America and democracy, though time itself cannot be the "domino," as it were, which sets off this disastrous course. There must be a catalyst. If the Bill of Rights or even an element of it were to be severely damaged, it is liable to become the American system's Achilles heel.
An erosion of the freedom of religion is a good example. Were this right to be denied, it would in turn affect the freedom of speech. Without the freedom of speech, a wide number of things become crimes. After this, the dominos would continue to fall. The disregard of human rights would be thus made legal and the door left wide open for other human rights violations. The American system, though brilliantly crafted, is by nature precarious. Although that first domino is difficult to tip, once tipped it could open the floodgates to innumerable other problems.
Just as the supreme court builds off of its past decisions, as indicated by its Latin principle "stare decisis" or "the decision stand," so does legislation tend to over time.
With an unaccountable government comes fear, instability and unrest. Herein lies the danger of surrendering our rights; it is why too-powerful a government is more dangerous than any international threat. Under a government ruled by its whims, domestic stability and happiness become nearly impossible to maintain. While there is peace at home, stability is possible even with war occurring abroad. When the threat comes from within, however, no semblance of safety remains.
Where, then, must a person turn if the government itself has "gone bad"? Naturally, as has happened numerous times before, he turns to his own means for protection. Such occurred in the French Revolution. While this recourse does not always end badly, to which America is testament, the number of bloody, devastating revolutions or uprisings far outweigh successful ones. Additionally, the divisiveness of revolution and unrest, which comes naturally out of overbearing government, is a damaging force in and of itself. Wars divide, politics divide and morals divide, but revolution and widespread unrest divide more acutely than any of these. Further, by forcing people to function under its compulsory dictates, citizens live in fear. Lastly, a disorderly, discontented and unpatriotic nation has fewer motives and less hope for combating the outside threats which it so feared. Altogether, the end result would fell America and end its period of glory. Even without factoring the risk and damage to a person's life, health and happiness from a tyrannical government, the results would be catastrophic.
Yet the understandable desire for international security can blind people to the importance of domestic security. Indeed, American citizens have historically been more willing to accept a limiting of rights in times of adversity. For instance, early in America's history, in 1798, during an unofficial naval war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts were passed. These four documents curtailed freedom of speech by making publishing "false, scandalous and malicious writing" against the government a crime. The three which most blatantly violated the Bill of Rights were not repealed until tensions with France eased around 1800.
Later, during World War II, thousands of Japanese immigrants were sent into internment camps. It was not until after the war had ended that the government recanted and society as a whole was willing to recognize how wrong these actions had been. More recently, the implications against the Bill of Rights made by the Patriot Act only seven years ago went essentially unchallenged for a time. The act made these implications most obvious by legalizing roving wiretaps, "delayed notice" of warrants and allowing investigators to seize "any tangible thing ... in connection with" a terrorist organization, among other things. It is thus clear that, indeed, "crisis is the rallying cry of a tyrant." As such, citizens should be all the more cautious and suspicious of surrendering their rights during a crisis, and listen all the more carefully for the tyrant's cry.