Title: Infringement upon Basic Humanity

Author: Elmo

Genre: Essay (regarding what justifies the encroachment of rights in times of crisis in America.) And, um, don't worry, because I don't think it's as confusing or wordy as I'm making it sound.

A/N: I admit, this was done as a homework assignment to answer the question: "What rights would you give up under the guise of a national emergency?" I am proud of it, though; proud enough to post it here. Feedback, comments, or heated arguments are very much appreciated. Do enjoy, and don't forget to ponder.

-------------------------

The American Constitution ostensibly guarantees us certain rights. The right to privacy, the right to a fair trial with a lawyer, the right to vote, and the right of freedom of speech are only a few of them. At times, our freedoms have been compromised. In some cases, like the McCarthy trials of the 1950's, the unfair actions taken against American citizens was protested, or at least, people today understand what a breach of dignity such measures are. Sometimes, though, the government has to restrict our freedoms for a real reason that will help Joe Smith and not just Uncle Sam. For example, limiting rationing on food and gasoline in WWII helped the war efforts, and although there are some arguments concerning whether or not WWII was a justified war, citizens then were more than happy to comply, and this is still seen as something we did willingly. Sometimes we need to protest when government restrictions spring up, and sometimes these restrictions are for the best. The real trick is knowing which scenario is which.

There are some dignities that are not to be toyed with, ever. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are supposed to be our inalienable rights, according to a well-respected man named Thomas Jefferson. Although any supporters of, for example, the Patriot Act could make the argument that our country's forefathers are only as human as the rest of us, well, so is Bush. Challenging guarantees such as those in the Constitution is not entirely unthinkable; rather, anyone who does should think really, really hard about it first. In any case, I can't imagine an instance in which revoking those rights from any person would be justified, no matter what they've done. There is a first time for everything, and I'm not saying it will never be justified, but it seems to me that anyone revoking basic human rights should have a very good argument behind him. The same goes for the rest of the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights, and for that matter, any law still in existence. They may not be perfect, but then again, the people who may be changing them don't know everything, either. They were set down by our predecessors for good reason, and anyone who takes them away should have an equally good reason before he messes with set laws.

This begs the question, what, exactly, counts as a good reason? There are no absolute guidelines that can be set, but the first step to making a just law is having fair discussions about it. Representatives need to argue, and everybody needs to say his or her piece. The state should act based on a majority vote, and not any outside evidence that a party refuses to talk about. So far, so good; this is supposedly what happens. I do regret the President's veto power, as it can overrule even a consensus the first time, but as I said previously, it's best not to try to change some laws.

This is where the questions start: what should influence the decisions of members of Congress? There are a few things I could think of, and while the list I brainstormed isn't perfect, there are no guidelines that are. There will always be clashes and disagreements of what justifies an invasion of privacy, for instance, or capital punishment, or declaring war, or life imprisonment, or any and all actions the government can carry out. The topic to be addressed in this essay, however, is what rights the government should be able to take away during an alleged National Emergency, so I'll talk about that. It's in list format for clarity.

1. Is someone's life in danger? If one action can protect a person - any person, that is; not just an American citizen - it may be justified. There are exceptions to this rule, namely that if killing an entire camp of foreign civilians may protect an American businessman, that certainly doesn't justify doing it. When asking this question, lawmakers need to remember that whatever saves the most lives is the action to be taken. The argument that some lives are more important than others is an important one, but it's impossible to take that into account in an objective debate. There should be a common guideline for every dilemma involving peoples' lives, and since officials can't argue about which lives are more important, this is the most logical thing to consider.

2. Could it stop a war? If the answer to this question is yes, I believe that whatever action the government was debating becomes justified, in most cases. Notice that I say in most cases because Hiroshima and Nagasaki, while they ended WWII, were questionable solutions, at best. There is an exception to every rule, and if there's one exception, it's likely there will eventually be many more. Also, this is only my opinion as an ordinary citizen who doesn't know any more than anybody else - there are some very different sides to the debate about peace being the ultimate objective, and I don't want to discount them.

3. Is it legal? If something isn't already ruled as alright by previous lawmakers, this is a big sign that maybe we should think twice about allowing it. If it's not allowed, there's a good reason for it, although the current administration seems less and less willing to admit that. Two hundred and twenty eight years of history are rarely wrong.

In addition to the three I mentioned, there are many more questions that should impact such a big decision. I just can't think of them right now. Keep in mind that there is no single criterion that should be able to swing the debate all on its own. As important as many of these are, they all need to be balanced, as well. In fact, just because a proposition meets the majority of the criteria, it still needs to be looked at from other points of views. The ones I've mentioned are all factual; but there should be lots of consideration about any views that are philosophical, emotional, or moral in nature. Simple mathematics and yes and no tests can't answer everything. People need to deliberate and look at an issue from every side before a good decision can be made.

Alternately, there are a few main points that definitely should not affect decisions, but do anyway.

1. Does it concern National Security? This should be irrelevant, simply because National Security is an abstract and fabricated concept. In other words, it doesn't exist.

2. Will we make more money? If the only thing stopping the government from declaring war on Canada is the fact that the Canadian dollar is worth comfortably less than ours, there is something wrong.

We've discussed what justifies a violation of rights, but a question just as important is which, if any, rights should the government be allowed to restrict? I've already presented my opinion on anything in the Bill of Rights, and for the most part, I think those ten laws are some of very many things the government should need some extremely solid reasoning for changing. I can't think of any instances in which freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of petition, and freedom to assemble peacefully could ever hurt anybody or anything, except a rich person's ego. Freedom of religion is just as innocuous, for the most part, and should never be restricted unless it's to stop rituals involving human sacrifices. I don't see how any of the first amendment rights could ever start a war or riot, effect a foreign invasion, or threaten security, or how anyone could even consider that they might somehow start natural disasters. In the interest of time, I'm not going to go through the nine remaining amendments and reinforce that they're perfectly harmless, but please do understand that only in very twisted circumstances could they ever come close to hurting anybody. Protection from cruel and unusual punishment, for example, wouldn't save a life - the defendant would still be in custody; whether custody involves modern jail cells or medieval torture chambers is irrelevant to how much harm the criminal can do. Especially lately, people seem to be forgetting this. Similarly, the wording of the Bill of Rights contains many exceptions that were added so that nothing is absolute. The third amendment, which was made to keep soldiers from intruding in peoples' houses (as Redcoats did in the American Revolution, as per the Quartering Act), says this is allowed only if the country is currently at war, and then only in a reasonable "manner prescribed by law" - which means that the government doesn't have to change the rules to allow for quartering in wars, because it's already been thought of. The Fifth Amendment protects people from needing to testify or provide evidence against themselves - except for in a hearing before a Grand Jury, when it's absolutely necessary. Jefferson et al made exceptions so that while civilians have their own rights, the government can circumvent them when necessary. This is why current lawmakers need to follow the Bill of Rights - it has made all the allowances necessary for them; the founding fathers predicted any future situation and accommodated for it in the laws they wrote. If something isn't allowed, it's because these men didn't believe it was a good idea, not because of an oversight.

There are some rights, however, that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Luckily for us, they thought of that, too; "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, just because the Constitution doesn't mention a right, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Privacy is mentioned in the fourth amendment, but never defined fully. That doesn't give the government the right to infringe on it by tapping phone lines, checking private records, or anything else that the law didn't specifically forbid.

"What about the Patriot Act? - it's a law as much as anything," you say. This is the point where this essay becomes much more subjective than it already is. I've been talking about the legal implications of everything, but I believe there is much more than that. Sure, the Patriot Act was passed, under circumstances that may or may not have met every standard of justice. But like I said before, Congress isn't perfect. Just because they agree with something doesn't make it right. They're just as likely to be wrong as any other human is, maybe even more so because it's quite a possibility that they're blinded or confused by their excessive power. In any case, laws like the Patriot Act may fit the criteria for a fair law, but that doesn't mean they are fair.

There are many other implications that come into play. The most important one is religion. Religion has very little to do with politics today, but nonetheless, it does govern nearly everybody in its own way. It presents a concept that people are more likely to follow: right and wrong. It can't be incorporated into the government because religion reasoning is too unscientific, blind faith too un-provable. Even though in a grounded debate, logic rules against religion, in practice, God has many more loyal followers than any President ever will. The Patriot Act doesn't have a place in this paragraph, so forget about it. Instead recall the John Scopes vs. Tennessee trial of 1925. This is a warped take on the religious argument, but one of the few events I've studied. The law, uncharacteristically, sided with religion in stating that only the ideas about creation in the book Genesis could be taught in school. John Scopes broke the law by teaching his students Darwin's Theory of Evolution. The law was against him; he had broken it, fair and square. However, his attorney, Mr. Clarence Darrow, used strong reasoning to point out the similarities between the two opposing theories. If what he said is true, it can be interpreted to mean that while God actually said what was in the Bible, He was also behind Darwin's discoveries. In other words, even though Scopes had done something illegal, a more influential and divine power was behind him and his syllabus. In many cases, an audience will side with God, no matter what the legal arguments are. The judge ultimately found Scopes guilty, but not before Darrow had made a revolutionary speech. If I remember correctly (which I may not, because I was half asleep by the end of Inherit the Wind,) the courthouse audience was swayed to Scopes's side. His lawyer had successfully used a combination of logic and theology to convince them, when before, Darwin's logic had failed pitifully against God's word.

I understand that because of its nature, religious points are often given very little merit in political debates. Normally I try not to use subjective arguments or ones that don't depend on facts and logic. In this case, however, it was necessary to mention religion because it is such an inherent part of human nature. A debate about civil rights isn't complete without examining this side of the argument.

There are more things to take into account besides law and theology. There's the human psyche and all its beliefs about right and wrong. Human intuition, while it also doesn't have any basis in fact, is an important part of determining law - it tugs on the consciences of lawmakers as they debate, and influences their decisions as much as it influences the actions of any person. I think that people trust themselves and their religion more than laws. Even if a law makes perfect sense on paper, people will follow their intuition when it tells them not to trust the law.

Another important one is human dignity. This concept is entirely abstract, yet it means more to us than most facts. To revisit the Patriot Act: even if the concept is legal, it still grates against inborn feelings about privacy, about more intense freedoms than can be granted by the government, about our God-given rights. Unfair laws go against our intuition and our human dignity; that is why we resist them so much even when it seems there is no logical reason for us to do so. Much more important to us than the Constitution are our own human feelings.

This brings us back to which rights can be sacrificed and which rights the government can revoke. Humans will always protest against laws that don't fit their ideas of what rights we were born with and deserve. This leaves very few options for the government to infringe upon our rights. When the Bill of Rights doesn't contest an unfair ruling, our humanity will. Humans will not suffer themselves to be mistreated, not when the thoughts of conscience and dignity inherent in our minds scream so loudly against a breach of justice.

Instead of going through every right that I think a person might or might not sacrifice, I will leave it at that. Any government ruling that makes us uneasy for a reason we can't explain is a bad one, and just because a ruling fits my (or any) humble list of criteria above for being a fair motion doesn't mean that it is. If there is a right you don't feel good about giving up, then don't sacrifice it, no matter how much sense it makes. Ben Franklin once said, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." The most essential liberty we posses is the freedom to follow what our inner mind tells us. To go against basic human instinct to reach a goal (like so- called national security or a stronger union) is the worst breach of that freedom. The abstract rules are much more accurate than the above legal ones: if it doesn't clash with your sense of human dignity, intuition, or conscience, then it is safe to go along with it. All the logical and political reasoning in the world can't provide a better rule than that.