If the purpose of the government is to provide security for the rights to life, liberty and property,then when should the government be able to limit these rights, if at all?
2007-09-12 10:51:16 · 6 answers · asked by Tyler R 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Have to agree with Bravozulu. Great answer. Wish I'd beaten you to the punch!
2007-09-12 10:55:42 · answer #1 · answered by Doc 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Per the constitution and BOR, the government may only limit rights when they specify what is illegal. Some rules of society have to exist or we'd all be killing each other in the streets. The balance is between the rights of the individual and the rights of society.
Each generation is responsible for defining for themselves where to draw the line between these two opposing factors. That is why we owe it to ourselves to become and stay, informed voters, and not buy the emotion rhetoric so many foolish people do.
2007-09-12 18:01:04 · answer #2 · answered by Fancy That 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
The idea is that governments are formed by the consent of the governed. People give up a little bit of their life/liberty/property to live in a society with laws to protect the -rest- of their rights.
Otherwise you'd have anarchy and NOBODY's life/liberty/property would be safe.
I mean, if you lived all by yourself on a desert island you wouldn't need laws. As soon as you have -two- people living on the desert island, you need at least rules. ("Look, this is -my- toothbrush. You use your -own- toothbrush, okay?')
The question is: How much govt. intrusion into our lives is enough, how much is too much?
The problem we have in the US is that government has grown beyond its constitutional power. Our government no longer represents the common will of the people. Plus our political processes have grown corrupt so our government is inefficient, riddled with waste and fraud and graft. We all agree on that but not on how to fix it.
2007-09-12 17:57:49 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Section 9 US Constitution
------The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pretty sure a terrorist attack and prevention of those after until the threat is removed can be construed as an invasion.
Bush is not the first President to use it. Johnson issued the KKK Acts that did the same thing when the KKK was terrorising blacks and anyone who disagreed with them.
Roosevelt removed freedom of Speech during WW2 making it a crime for anyone to report from the front lines. He thought it would demoralize Americans to hear about American military dying in mass numbers. He was right.
2007-09-12 18:16:11 · answer #4 · answered by WCSteel 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
where did you hear it is the "purpose" of the Gov?..I know under a Supreme Court decision you have no "right" to police protection..so id guess you have the wrong info based on that decision...
2007-09-12 17:55:22 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
To prevent your rights from infringing on others?
2007-09-12 17:54:19 · answer #6 · answered by bravozulu 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋