Protecting Our Freedoms: National Security And The Constitution

The terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, prompted the US government to implement policies that infringed on constitutional freedoms in the name of national security. These policies included torture, targeted killing, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and religious discrimination. While national security is essential, it must be balanced with the protection of individual liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. The challenge lies in finding the delicate balance between safeguarding national security and preserving constitutional freedoms. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), for instance, works to ensure that national security policies and practices are consistent with the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights. Benjamin Franklin famously said, Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. This quote underscores the importance of maintaining a vigilant defense of our freedoms, even in the face of national security concerns.

Explore related products

The National Security Constitution in the Twenty-First Century

$31.42 $40

National Security Law and the Constitution: [Connected Ebook] (Aspen Casebook)

$345 $359

National Security Law and the Constitution (Aspen Casebook Series)

$359 $352

The National Security Enterprise: Navigating the Labyrinth

$39.95 $14.95

The National Security Constitution: Sharing Power After the Iran-Contra Affair (Yale Fastback Series)

$35.96 $44

National Security Law and the Constitution (Aspen Casebook)

$224.73 $259

The War on Terror and the balance between liberty and national security

The War on Terror, initiated after the September 11 attacks on the United States, brought a new focus on balancing liberty and national security. The threat of terrorism poses a challenge to fundamental rights and freedoms, with democratic societies risking the abandonment of their values in the face of this threat. The War on Terror has highlighted the delicate balance between civil liberties and national security, and how this balance can be disrupted by extraordinary measures.

Throughout history, wars and perceived risks to national security have prompted governments to restrict freedoms, particularly those of speech and the press. For example, during the Civil War, the federal government restricted freedom of speech and the press, with newspaper reporters and editors arrested without due process for opposing the draft or criticising the government. Similarly, following the 9/11 attacks, the USA PATRIOT Act was passed, granting the government broad powers to investigate and prosecute suspected terrorists, potentially impacting First Amendment freedoms.

The preservation of national security is an obligation of the government and can, at times, require a balancing of rights. For instance, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 during World War I led to Supreme Court decisions on when national security could justify infringing on First Amendment freedoms. The Supreme Court has also upheld certain laws on national security interests, such as the McCarran Internal Security Act, which required the Communist Party of the US to register, potentially violating freedom of association.

However, the government must provide proof that national security interests are at play and cannot simply use national security as a reason to bypass constitutional challenges. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court rejected the government's national security justification for preventing the publication of the Pentagon Papers, upholding First Amendment freedoms.

The War on Terror has similarly raised concerns about the balance between liberty and security. Measures such as the interception of communications, searches without warrants, and prolonged detention without charge have been implemented in the name of national security. While these measures may aid in fighting terrorism, they also risk sacrificing civil liberties and democratic values, underscoring the delicate balance that must be maintained in times of crisis.

The government's use of national security as a justification for unconstitutional practices

The preservation of national security is one of the foremost reasons for a government to exist. However, throughout history, the government has used national security as a justification for unconstitutional practices.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, the US government adopted policies of torture, targeted killing, indefinite detention, mass surveillance, and religious discrimination. The government also passed the USA Patriot Act, which gave the FBI increased power to investigate individuals suspected of terrorism. These policies infringed on the First Amendment freedoms of speech and expression.

During the Civil War, the federal government restricted freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Union generals prevented newspapers from publishing battle plans and took measures to stop Confederate sympathizers from aiding the enemy. Similarly, during World War I, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 led to Supreme Court decisions that allowed restrictions on First Amendment freedoms in the name of national security.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) works to hold the government accountable for these abuses and to ensure that national security policies are consistent with the Constitution, civil liberties, and human rights. The ACLU's National Security Project strives to educate the public and shape the law so that the courts, Congress, and citizenry can serve as a check against abuse.

The role of the Supreme Court in deciding when national security justifies impinging on First Amendment freedoms

The Supreme Court plays a pivotal role in interpreting and deciding when national security concerns can justify limitations on First Amendment freedoms. The First Amendment guarantees various rights, including freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. However, throughout US history, national security crises have often led to tensions between preserving these freedoms and protecting national security.

The Supreme Court has the challenging task of balancing national security interests with protecting First Amendment rights. During times of war or perceived threats to national security, the government may attempt to restrict certain freedoms. For example, during World War I, the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918 were enacted, leading to the first Supreme Court decisions on when national security could justify impinging on First Amendment freedoms. In Schenck v. United States (1919) and Abrams v. United States (1919), the Court upheld punishments against political dissidents, finding that their speech posed a clear and present danger to national security and war efforts.

The Supreme Court has also pushed back against national security justifications and protected First Amendment freedoms. In New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court rejected the government's attempt to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, classified documents related to the Vietnam War. Justice Hugo L. Black emphasised that national security should not be used to abrogate First Amendment freedoms.

In another notable case, Haig v. Agee (1981), the Court ruled against a former CIA agent who claimed his First Amendment rights were violated when his passport was revoked after he criticised the government. The Court disagreed, upholding the government's action under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA) of 1982, which made it a federal crime to intentionally reveal the identity of certain covert agents.

The Supreme Court has also considered cases involving symbolic speech and political dissent. During the Vietnam War era, the Court upheld the conviction of an individual who burned a draft card, but also protected students' rights to wear black armbands to school in protest of the war. In these complex and evolving national security landscapes, the Supreme Court's interpretations and decisions play a critical role in defining the boundaries of First Amendment freedoms.

Explore related products

The Constitution of the United States and The Declaration of Independence

$1.99 $14.95

National Security Intelligence

$17.71 $29.95

Terrorism and the Constitution: Sacrificing Civil Liberties In The Name Of National Security

$15.95 $15.95

Terrorism and the Constitution: The Post-9/11 Cases

$57

Not a Suicide Pact: The Constitution in a Time of National Emergency (Inalienable Rights)

$20.25 $36.99

The Hamas Intelligence War against Israel (Intelligence and National Security in Africa and the Middle East)

$41.99 $41.99

The government's duty to provide proof that national security interests are at play

The preservation of national security is a key function of governments, and it can sometimes come into conflict with the protection of constitutional freedoms. The government has a duty to provide proof that national security interests are at play when invoking national security to justify actions that may infringe on constitutional rights. This is because national security should not be used as a "blank check" to sidestep constitutional challenges.

For example, in New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the US government attempted to prevent the New York Times and the Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which contained classified information about US involvement in the Vietnam War. The government argued that publishing the documents would harm national security. However, the Supreme Court rejected the government's justification, stating that the government had not provided sufficient proof that national security interests were at play. Justice Hugo L. Black emphasized that "the word 'security' is a broad, vague generality whose contours should not be invoked to abrogate the fundamental law embodied in the First Amendment."

Similarly, in Schenck v. the United States, the Supreme Court upheld punishments against political dissidents during World War I under the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. The Court ruled that national security concerns justified limitations on First Amendment freedoms in this case.

The balance between national security and constitutional freedoms has been a ongoing challenge for governments, especially during times of war or perceived threats. For instance, after the September 11 attacks, the US government passed the USA PATRIOT Act, which granted broad powers to investigate and prosecute suspected acts of terrorism. This led to debates about the appropriate balance between liberty and security.

In conclusion, while the government has a duty to provide proof of national security interests, determining this balance is complex and often subject to judicial interpretation. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in deciding when national security concerns outweigh constitutional freedoms, as in the case of New York Times Co. v. United States, where the Court rejected the government's justification for restricting press freedom.

The government's duty to protect the rights of the people

The protection of citizens' rights is a key purpose of governments, as outlined in the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. The Constitution establishes the government's responsibility to protect citizens' rights and sets forth the basic rights of citizens to life, liberty, and property. It also imposes limitations on how the government can exercise its powers.

The preservation of national security may sometimes conflict with the protection of citizens' rights. For example, in times of war or perceived risks to national security, governments may restrict certain freedoms, such as freedom of speech and freedom of the press, in the name of national security. This delicate balance between liberty and security has been a focus of debate, particularly after the September 11 attacks, which led to the USA PATRIOT Act, granting the government broad powers in the name of national security.

The government must provide proof that national security interests are genuinely at stake and cannot simply use national security as a reason to override constitutional challenges. The Supreme Court plays a crucial role in interpreting the Constitution and ensuring that the government does not infringe on citizens' rights. In the case of New York Times Co. v. United States (1971), the Court rejected the government's national security justification for preventing the publication of the Pentagon Papers, upholding the freedom of the press.

At the state level, legislators, governors, and judges are obligated to protect the rights of their citizens. For example, members of Congress have a duty to evaluate proposed legislation and defeat any they deem unconstitutional. The President also has a duty to evaluate and veto unconstitutional legislation and ensure that executive branch regulations do not violate the Constitution.

The concept of natural rights, as proposed by philosophers like Locke and agreed upon by Thomas Jefferson, asserts that the protection of rights is the primary purpose of government. Locke's idea, reflected in the Declaration of Independence, states that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed and that the people have the right to alter or abolish a government that fails to protect their rights.

Frequently asked questions