Huerta 1

Jocelyn Huerta
Professor Altman
English 114B
6 May, 2014
A Nation Under The Constitution
The law is not absolute, and the slogan Fiat iustitia ruat caelum (Let justice be done
though the heavens fall) is dangerous nonsense (Posner). Throughout history there have been
times when the government will do anything in order to keep the nation safe, ignoring the rights
of the people and the people being unaware of change in government. Although we find our
rights to be the most important thing, we as citizens dont allow ourselves to be informed of
government controlling our rights and ideas through media. Nothing in the courts stay the same
forever, laws always change depending on new public opinion so our civil liberties shouldnt be
any different. These civil liberties that have been written by the Framers serve people as
protection from the government but there are too many expectations from the civil liberties.
Although many individuals believe that we have rights that are protected, we should not take our
rights for granted because the government controls the interpretation of the Constitution, the
government ignores our civil liberties, and the government regulates the media.
The Constitution changes on the interpretation, based off politics, which we cannot call
ours or expect to be safe. It can be interpreted because the Framers left it too vague and it leaves
the courts a chance to understand the Constitution. In Posners article, Security versus Civil
Liberties he makes a point that the government alters the interpretation of the Constitution
depending on the threats to our national security. He states that a safer nation is preferred over
civil liberties, What we take to be our civil liberties--were made legal rights by the
Huerta 2

Constitution and other enactments. The other enactment can be changed relatively easy, by
amendatory legislation (Posner 1). The fact that the Constitution can be altered in the way that
seems fit reveals that the government has the ability to control the agenda, being its importance
nationally. The ability to change the interpretation should be a scary thought to any American but
no one is aware of the governments ability, which has been taken into effect with the Bush
Administration. During the Bush Administration there were many times when the head of the
Office of Legal Counsel (OLN), Attorney General John Yoo, would use his authority as a lawyer
and interpret the law to enhance the Presidents power. Attorney General Yoo would do anything
to keep the President in power, whoever is in charge of the OLN will decide the functions the
executive branch. To be in charge of such authority is dangerous for society because any of the
branches can become stronger with a new interpretation in its favor, leaving individuals to follow
government unknowingly.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has the ability to observe individuals in order to
find out if there are any threats to the government or nation, which at its heart is unconstitutional.
The surveillance techniques includes tapping into phone calls and monitoring the internet in
order to get useful information; if anything seems out of the ordinary they will track that person
to find out if they, themselves are a threat (Gallagher). After Edward Snowden, who worked in
the NSA, found out that people were being watched and had no privacy, he told the media all the
information that was discovered while working. When individuals found out about their privacy
being taken away they were furious because they believe surveillance on them is against the
Constitution. In order to crack the NSA, President Bush passed the Patriot Act in 2001, a month
after 9/11. The purpose of the Patriot Act was to use any means of intercepting information that
was important to find those responsible for destroying the Twin Towers or future threats. When
Huerta 3

Bush passed the act it allowed heavy surveillance not only those who were suspects but on
Americans as well, they found it important to keep track of everyone so no danger would arise.
The security picked up heavily, not only in observing people, which was unconstitutional, but
also the border patrol, businesses, anything that could be used against the government. These
threats changed the agenda of government which changed the interpretation of the Constitution
making our rights unreliable when a national threat occurs.
When there is a threat in the nation, our civil liberties may be the last thing on the courts mind;
they prefer having the public safe. When a nation feels safe, they are willing to give individuals
their protection and their freedom; the balance is very dependent. In both Posners The Law
Security versus Civil Liberties and Taylor Jr.s Rights, Liberties, and Security article they
inform the reader of situations in the nation when safety was priority and how 9/11 caused that
priority shift. Search and seizure restrictions were the main (if widely unrecognized) cause of
the FBI's famous failure to seek a warrant during the weeks before September 11 to search the
computer and other possessions of Zacarias Moussaoui, the alleged 20th hijacker (Taylor Jr.).
The United States had fault in not having better security; since that horrific event occurred they
believe stricter security will help cover up the damage and their mistakes. There are periods
where events wont go as planned; when situations go bad it makes the United States seem
vulnerable. Which is why having better security will keep people protected and the government
wont seem vulnerable, but to what extent will our safety cost individuals their rights. The courts
will continue keeping the people safe without consenting their rights because they have the right
to decide what is priority. While individuals rely on the courts to keep them and their rights safe,
not one or the other, which reveals that there is no trusting the Constitution for absolute law.
Huerta 4

The United States violated its peoples rights, this usually occurs when there is fear of
war and terrorism. By the Japanese attacking Pearl Harbor it made Americans more patriotic and
want to counterattack Japan because they feared another attack. While in the states there had
been an act, Executive Order 9066, passed to keep all Japanese individuals in camps so they
wont give secrets away to Japan; most people who were interned were Japanese-Americans.
Roosevelt, the President of that time, had passed this act because he was pressured; many
believed it was the right thing to do at that time. The Internment camps were no different from
Concentration camps in Germany; there were 10 camps across the country which werent very
sanitary for individuals to live. There were about 120,000 people taken into the camps, s were
American citizens and the rest were children. While in the camps there were loyalty tests which
would allow the government to find out those who would treason the nation, many did not, there
were 10 individuals convicted of spying and they were all Caucasians (History.com). This
reveals how unnecessary it was to keep the Japanese in the camps; none of them ever did
anything because they were loyal to their new nation. In the end, the camps were abolished by
1946 because it was seen as unconstitutional to keep Citizens in camps; it was a violation of their
liberties. In order to get the United States to feel safe, they took away rights from Japanese-
Americans. This was for the safety of Americans yet the Japanese were also Americans. The
government justified their actions, of putting Japanese into camps, by claiming there was danger,
a new attack to the Unites States. This reveals that no ones rights are safe in the time of a threat
because the Constitution can be interpreted differently as long as there is danger to the
government.
Regulating the media is another way of censorship which doesnt allow individuals to have all
of their rights. In Suppressing Allied Atrocity Stories: The Unwritten Clause of World War II
Huerta 5

Censorship Code by Slattery and Doremus, they state that the media have an issue with staying
loyal with the nation or expressing their ideals. If they voice their opinion it may be viewed as
betrayal, Press censorship is often tolerated when the nations security is threatenedofficials
typically argue that safety is a higher law than the Constitution (Slattery and Doremus). If most
officials view safety important, and wont view the Constitution in the same way, then
individuals rights can be viewed that way as well. A nation who will comply with their demands
is prefered because its easier to be in command without any issues. Not having freedom of
speech brings peace and patriotism because opinions arent being heard so others may not want
to give their ideals since the government is restraining individuals. When there are threats it will
bring paranoid individuals who will forbid ideas that are foreign and unknown, the understanding
of the Constitution can change like it has then and now.
During World War II there were many depictions of the Japanese being evil and foreign;
to spread the word of Japanese being evil the government used propaganda. This propaganda
was very racist. Many times the Japanese were depicted as rats and other types of vermin.
Americans viewed them as a threat to white society because they were invading their territory,
much like rats and vermin, which is the reason of using vermin as the depiction. The media in
this time was very harsh but it had an important influence on peoples opinion of the Japanese, it
led to the idea of internment camps. The media also censored specific information that did not
need to be known by Americans, they were limited to show information (Slattery and Doremus).
Those who were affected were Journalists because they could not share their ideas of the war,
internment camps, and other political ideas. The purpose was to keep America safe emotionally
because they were afraid of the unknown and the familiar with no danger is important to the
courts. The government can decide what is shared and what is secret, those who do not obey will
Huerta 6

pay for it with consequences. Much of the media is what influences people, in the past and
present, which is why the United States Officials like to keep it under control because it becomes
a way to control individuals opinions and ideas.
In conclusion, civil liberties may or may not be priority because it depends on the safety
of the nation, if they are feeling safe or there is danger. The use of censorship in the Constitution
is well known to keep the people in a bubble because the government wants everyone on board
with their ideas of protection. Our rights can be changed at any given time because of the
interpretation of the Constitution; since it is so vague anyone can decipher its meaning. Its
important to know what our rights are as well as the problems in the world because those can
affect each individual whether we know it or not.













Huerta 7

Works Cited
Gallagher, Ryan. "Fact and Fiction in the NSA Surveillance Scandal." Slate Magazine. Slate, 26
June 2013. Web. 05 May 2014.
Jr, Stuart Taylor. Rights, Liberties, and Security. The Brookings Review, 21.1 (2003): 25.
"Japanese-American Relocation." History.com. Ed. Eric Foner and John A. Garraty. A&E
Television Networks, n.d. Web. 25 Mar. 2014.
Posner, Richard A. "The Law Security versus Civil Liberties." The Atlantic. Atlantic Media
Company, Dec. 2001. Web. 12 Mar. 2014.
Slattery, Karen, and Mark Doremus. "Suppressing Allied Atrocity Stories: The Unwritten Clause
of the World War II Censorship Code." Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly,
89.4 (2012): 624-642.