The Franklin Times -
The recent events in New York City raise numerous questions that all nations must carefully consider and weigh. What is the proper balance between security and protecting constitutional rights? Some thoughts from the U.S. can be found below.
Obama administration owes answers on how it handled Times Square suspect
Smoking Car to an Arrest in 53 Hours
A Renewed Debate Over Suspect Rights
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The PLP believes that the Constitution states everyones rights. The proper balance between security and protecting constitutional rights are when the government proves something that is based on facts, yet cannot violate the rights of the people.
The FAP believes that Constitutional rights must be upheld, unless in extreme conditions that endangers public safety. The line between security and constitutional rights should not be based off of principle, but based of the situation at hand.
The CRP agrees with the FAP, in which our party believes that Constitutional rights should be guaranteed to citizens unless the rights hamper/harm the public's safety. The measure of security should be determined on the basis of how serious the offense is.
Constitutional rights should be in effect to all citizens, unless the rights place harm upon the public. There should be a line between security and what the constitution states.The government shoud step in when the people are in danger, but keep the constitutional rights relavent. The Constituion protects the rights of all United States citizens, but the government protects the individual people. A safe, law obiding nation promotes success for the future.
TUPP beleives that citizens' rights should be upheld unless there is a clear danger to our nation's safety. Citizens' rights are protected by the Constitution and so there for we cannot take away their rights. Based on how serious the problem, is how we choose to act.
Post a Comment