Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Presidents power when in crisis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Presidents power when in crisis
One of the longest lasting debates in the United States is the struggle to balance freedom and safety. Throughout history there have been instances were freedoms have been suspended- whether for the better or worse- because the United States was in a time of crisis. The Quasi War against the French, the Civil War, and the First World War were events where presidents found themselves under fire because of their controversial suspension of certain constitutional rights. Should certain freedoms be curtailed in times of crisis? This debate has always been so controversial because there has never been a majority one way or another. There have always been people for suspending freedoms to preserve safety and at the same time there have always been people that have believed that freedom is ultimately more important than safety.
Quasi War
In the country’s adolescence the United States encountered their first scenario when the suspension of certain rights seemed necessary: the Quasi War. In the late 1700s leaders of the French Revolution were frustrated with the United States and had signed an order that allowed the French to seize American merchant ships. President John Adams sent a delegation to Paris in an effort to maintain peaceful relations with the French. To the United States’ mortification Tallyrand, the French’s minister of foreign relations, refused to meet with this delegation and instead sent three agents to meet them instead. These agents (later known as agents XYZ) informed the delegation that the United States needs to give France a low-interest loan and pay a substantial bribe to Talleyrand. (Office of the Historian) When Adams presented this correspondence before Congress the Federalists cried out for war against the F...
... middle of paper ...
...itution, there is an allotment for the suspension of habeas corpus if there is an instance of rebellion, which the Civil War was. Adams’ and Wilson’s policies, however, blatantly defied the Constitution. Although it is true that they did it in good intent, it’s similar to a poor person robbing a gas station to get some food; it may be with good intentions, but it is still wrong. The Constitution is what we, as Americans, have accepted as our unbreakable laws. In our eyes, the Constitution is almost sacred. So, when Presidents decide that their laws can override what we believe to be just, it lessens the value of the Constitution. It is my belief that in times of crisis or war, when national survival is at stake, the upholding of our Constitution is more imperative than ever, to prove to American citizens that our government will stand by what they have promised us.
However, the author 's interpretations of Jefferson 's decisions and their connection to modern politics are intriguing, to say the least. In 1774, Jefferson penned A Summary View of the Rights of British America and, later, in 1775, drafted the Declaration of the Causes and Necessity of Taking Up Arms (Ellis 32-44). According to Ellis, the documents act as proof that Jefferson was insensitive to the constitutional complexities a Revolution held as his interpretation of otherwise important matters revolved around his “pattern of juvenile romanticism” (38). Evidently, the American colonies’ desire for independence from the mother country was a momentous decision that affected all thirteen colonies. However, in Ellis’ arguments, Thomas Jefferson’s writing at the time showed either his failure to acknowledge the severity of the situation or his disregard of the same. Accordingly, as written in the American Sphinx, Jefferson’s mannerisms in the first Continental Congress and Virginia evokes the picture of an adolescent instead of the thirty-year-old man he was at the time (Ellis 38). It is no wonder Ellis observes Thomas Jefferson as a founding father who was not only “wildly idealistic” but also possessed “extraordinary naivete” while advocating the notions of a Jeffersonian utopia that unrestrained
The American Civil War had a very profound effect upon the American Constitution and upon American constitutionalism generally. The Civil war had indeed been fought over a question of states’ rights, among other things, and the states’ rights interpretation had actually lost and was, to a degree, a casualty of the wartime period. Further, that casualty was swiftly hammered into its coffin by three amendments which were enacted in 1865, 1868 and 1870 – the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment ultimately became the heart and soul of the modern American Constitution. Most of the legal battle’s surrounding the United States Bill of Rights have been to make it a truly national document – such that states may not violate its provisions. The Fourteenth Amendment finally made this possible.
Unfortunately, the President’s consistency with Republican principles in matters of political power was not nearly as strong as his resolve to reduce the national debt. Under Jefferson and Madison, the federal government assumed political powers that the Constitution did not allot for. While prior to his presidency, Jefferson, then a strict constructionist had argued that the government should not assume any power unless specifically provided for in the Constitution, the Louisiana Purchase where America purchased a vast tract of land for $15 million, compromised these lofty ideals. In terms of the military, Thomas Jefferson had come to power vowing to reduce military size and power. Contrary to those principles, the Barbary War, where for nearly three years the American military exercised a naval blockade of the North African coast wasted millions of dollars of the people’s money and unconstitutionally violated states rights and strict constructionist principles, in their place asserting an alien un-Republican nationalism.
February 15th, 1898, all is quiet in Havana Harbor. The crew of the USS Maine is sound asleep less a few solitary watchmen. The brackish sea air and the calm ocean breeze are soothing and peaceful. This would hardly suggest the terror about to erupt on this “peaceful” visit to the Spanish-controlled Cuban harbor. At 9:45PM, a violent explosion rips the Maine apart sending it plummeting down to the muddy sea floor and killing nearly all of her crew. All of the Spanish boats in the harbor rushed to the aid of the American vessel and its survivors: the commander, Captain Charles D. Sigsbee, and a few lucky crewmembers. Even though Captain Sigsbee, a favorite of the Naval Department, urged President McKinley not to react in an aggressive manner toward Spain, the media, namely New York newspaper editors Pulitzer and Hearst, already inflating current issues relating to the Cuban revolution, spin the incident out of control. The American public goes mad with suspicion of Spanish fowl play and the sinking of the USS Maine serves as the immediate catalyst to the Spanish-American war.
Our nation seems as if it is in a constant battle between freedom and safety. Freedom and security are two integral parts that keep our nation running smoothly, yet they are often seen conflicting with one another. “Tragedies such as Pearl Harbor, 9/11 and the Boston Marathon bombings may invoke feelings of patriotism and a call for unity, but the nation also becomes divided, and vulnerable populations become targets,” (Wootton 1). “After each attack a different group or population would become targets. “The attack on Pearl Harbor notoriously lead to Japanese Americans being imprisoned in internment camps, the attacks on 9/11 sparked hate crimes against those who appeared to be Muslim or Middle Eastern,” (Wootton 1). Often times people wind up taking sides, whether it be for personal freedoms or for national security, and as a nation trying to recover from these disasters we should be leaning on each other for support. Due to these past events the government has launched a series of antiterrorist measures – from ethnic profiling to going through your personal e-mail (Begley 1). Although there are times when personal freedoms are sacrificed for the safety of others, under certain circumstances the government could be doing more harm than good.
11 months before the United States of America would declare war on Japan, President Franklin D. Roosevelt delivered a speech to the American people known as the “four freedoms” on January 6, 1941.1 The main purpose of this speech was to rally support to enter World War 2, however in order to declare war the United States Of America had to abandon the isolationist policies that emerged out of WWI. These four freedoms would establish human rights after the war, but more importantly they would resonate through the United States for decades after the war. Some of these freedoms have remained the same and some of these freedoms have changed throughout the years. We will be looking at three periods and comparing how the freedoms varied from each of the three periods.
The most blatant abuse of Lincoln's power was his suspension of habeas corpus. The suspension of this constitutional guarantee, by which a person could not be imprisoned indefinitely without being charges with some specific crime, around much opposition throughout the country. Although Lincoln himself made no concentrated efforts to suppress political oppositions, the repeal of habeas corpus enabled overzealous civil and military authorities to imprison thousands of people who were vocal in their opposition to the war against the South. During the war, in the case Ex parte Merryman, Chief Justice Taney ordered Lincoln to grant a writ of habeas corpus to a Southern agitator who had been arbitrarily jailed by military authorities in Maryland. Lincoln ignored the order. After the war, in the case Ex parte Milligan, the Supreme Court ruled that president could not suspend habeas corpus without the consent of Congress.
Geoffrey R. Stone in his book tries to give us a larger picture look at the history of the First Amendment during major periods of war. Stone states that “the United States has attempted to punish individuals for criticizing government officials or policies only during six episodes in our history.” Stone breaks down the six periods into two categories of rights suppression; Intense suppression periods which consist of militant agitation against France in 1798, World War I and the Cold War and less intense suppression which encompasses the Civil War, World War II, and the Vietnam War. This book mainly focuses on each of these periods.
The Federalists were led by George Washington, Alexander Hamilton and John Adams, whom believed in a looser interpretation of the Constitution and a strong national government. They were also more sympathetic toward the British and supported the National Bank due to their desire for an industrial and commercial economy. The issue came to the forefront when France and England resumed hostilities. Many Americans supported the goals of the French Revolution, but disagreed in terms of its methods. When French representative, Edmond Genet sought American support, Washington claimed that the United States was not strong enough to engage in a war and would remain neutral in the Proclamation of Neutrality of 1793. As a result, the Proclamation sparked rallies held by American supporters of the revolution under Genet, which led to his removal as a diplomat- that Jefferson supported. This event highlighted the intensity of the international problem between France’s reliance on America and America’s refusal to participate in the French
"That's her, that's the new girl. That's Holly Bennett. She is going to be in our group and not theirs," Mandi told us, as Holly shyly made her way over to the teachers desk.
In recent years the threat of global terrorism has risen and the United States government has depended on surveillance to combat it. Some believe that this is a small issue compared to what may happen if no precautions were taken, but this student believes that this is a bigger issue than just terrorism is concerned; among other things, it also involves respecting constitutional freedoms.
The Inevitable War World war I was a war of tragic loss between the dead, the wounded, and the missing. The war was between the allied forces, (France, Britain, United States, Russia) and the central powers, (Ottoman empire, Austria-Hungary, and Germany). Many people when learning about World War I in class or in books don’t see or understand the conglomeration of events that attributed to the start of this war. There was the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand, Increase in imperialism, nationalism, the arms race, and many more factors from years before 1914 that led to the break out of WWI. In many cases the world was growing and countries were becoming greedy and power hungry, There were no “main reasons for the war.
Benjamin Franklin once said, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain little temporary safety deserves neither liberty nor safety.” Freedom is one of the most important ideas in life, even if there is danger, it’s worth it. Freedom is everything, once one gives freedom up for safety, you no longer can make decisions for yourself. Above all, Freedom always comes with a little danger, but take a walk on the wild side, a little danger could make life more interesting.
In A Farewell to Arms, Ernest Hemingway depicts the hardships of war through love and sacrifice. Hemingway displays the pain love can cause no matter how hard one tries. Continual pain through war emanates a heavy physical and mental toll on one. This, in turn, urges one to look for a silver lining at the end of the tunnel.
It began when Alexander Hamilton was also in favor of this law due to the tyrannical schemes of the governments and its people. The Writ of Habeas Corpus had gone through a very long process and revision within the past centuries. It all began on April 27, 1861 when President Abraham Lincoln demanded a suspension to this law by taking an executive action. However, it did not last long because of the poor jurisdictions. Hence, it was ratified by the Congress after President Abraham Lincoln requested it. This led to the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of 1863, which enabled the release of political prisoners. In addition, the suspension act also denied the right and security of an individual, which lead to being held without indefinite trial. When President Andrew Johnson became president in 1865, he revoked the Habeas Corpus Suspension Act of