Bill of Rights, the Amendments, and the Administration of Justice and Security - Term Paper Example

Bill of Rights Introduction All matters that pertain to the justice and security status of the United s should be referred and conformed within the United States Constitution, which only implies that all processes made for the State's justice system and security status should be executed within the bounds of the law following certain procedures and methods necessary for the preservation of the rights of the people ("National Security", 2006). This methodical accomplishment of such rules and procedures would then ensure that each person's rights are left intact, as well as making it certain that the consequences of those efforts are cordial to the improvement of the whole State. Thus, Amendments in the U.S. Constitution or more commonly the "Bill of Rights" should always be applied by government agencies that either dispense justice or ensure the security of the nation. The Amendments and the Administration of Justice and Security The first amendment The first amendment states that a person's beliefs and religion are to be respected. The Bill of Rights specifically states that there would be no law against the practice of any particular religious belief, custom as well as the establishment of any religious order. The Bill of rights also specifically states that any person is entitled to freedom of speech as well as the right to assemble and ask for petitions from the Government for any grievances made ("The US Constitution Online", 2006). This amendment applies as long as the person is of legal age and he or she does not harm any other person. The U.S. government treats the first amendment as one of the most important amendments made as it is believed by the administration that this will set an example to other countries in the provision of freedom and liberty regarding a person's belief and customs. ("National Security", 2006). This amendment treats religion as a free choice granting a person the freedom to join and revere a religious group or not. With this, the government's plans to line in religious practice alongside peace and justice will lead the way to a more harmonious existence between the government and the populace. There are a multitude of religions that are established in the United States and U.S. citizens enjoy much freedom to choose their religion given that they are already of legal age. They may also choose not to join any religious group or order. In universities and other institutions, religion is not compulsory for students and employees thus freeing people from the pressures of religion on what they can and cannot do in their lives. The latest current U.S. government administration emphasized the creation of laws that are centered for the enrichment of personal honor and the protection of human rights which includes freedom of the press, freedom to choose religions, exercise of conscience and religious assembly and association (National Security Strategy", 2006). The fourth amendment The privacy of a person is the main focus of the fourth amendment of the Bill of Rights. In this section of the Bill of Rights, people have the right to secure anything (papers, personal effects and other personal property) in their private residences. Their properties are thus protected under law against any unauthorized searches and seizures. Search warrants are only issued when violations are made especially regarding the possession of illegal goods and substances. Seizure of illegal goods and substances will only commence when a sworn affidavit is made against the owners but until it has been proven, any residence could be monitored in accordance with the law. ("The US Constitution Online", 2006). Privacy has always been regarded as a major issue not only by the Law but by the citizens themselves. Every person is entitled to his or her own privacy and to intrude or breach someone's privacy only entails trouble. Although this is the case most of the time, the government can sometimes break this law under dire circumstances especially when the whole country is distressed due to some sort of national emergency involving security threats ("National Security", 2006). What this means is that private citizens have the right to do anything as long as they do it according to the law, but the U.S. government has the of authority to breach the privacy of its citizens and any other person in their jurisdiction when there are cases of national security threats thus showing that the security of the whole nation is much more important than any person's privacy. These cases wherein the government itself steps upon privacy of anyone are frowned upon more often than not, but these are extreme case and are extremely rare even in our times (Schneier, B., 2006). These actions and statements may not be well received by the general populace but this just proves that citizens have imminent opinions about the government's actions that can compromise their privacy. Also these government actions can be justified as something that is being done for the greater and common group of the whole community and that the members of the community should not only think about their own welfare but their society as well and that these sacrifices are necessary for their improvement ("National Security", 2006). Wiretapping for example is considered to be a very effective and efficient way of data gathering necessary for administering justice and security for the nation, but its use has been debated for a long time. Wiretapping is done by intercepting messages from vocal communication sources allowing the government to monitor the communications of the monitored party. Vocal evidences from wiretapped sources can be used in U.S. court trial because of their effectivity in pointing out guilt or innocence. ("Communications Privacy in the Digital Age", 1997). It is just up to the judge's discretion whether or not he will allow the use of wiretapped evidence as he deems necessary. Once the permit or warrant regarding the use of wiretapped message has been given, it is now treated as evidence and will therefore be considered legal and will not be considered as an invasion of privacy as long as the entire procedure is done within standard protocol ("National Security", 2006). The rules for wiretapping also applies for surveillance systems and other methods of data gathering although no one in a particular sector is allowed to monitor ordinary people and even those with rank without any legitimate connection to the agency. In more extreme cases, private Internet connections can also be accessed and monitored by the government through the use of their sophisticated equipment that can easily by-pass computer security systems such as firewalls thus allowing them to monitor suspicious persons effectively ("National Security", 2006). The Fifth Amendment The Fifth Amendment addresses issues for those who have been accused of crimes or considered as a suspect in the U.S. These particular people are regarded commonly by the government as security threats but although they are treated as such, they are still entitled to their basic human rights such as the right for a lawyer to represent him or her in a fair court trial. The U.S. Constitution specifically states that no person is to be held responsible for a grave or capital crime unless on a he or she is condemned by a Grand Jury and also in cases in which the individual is currently involved in the Army, Navy or any other branch of the Armed Forces, in a Militia or in times of war or public danger. The Constitution also states that no person would be subject to an offense if he or she is at risk of losing life or limb or be forced to testify against himself in any criminal allegation put against him as well as be deprived of his life, freedom or personal property without due process of law without any sort of fair compensation ("The US Constitution Online", 2006). People who are treated as security risks are considered as innocent up until evidences against him point out that he is the culprit of the crime. This also ensures that he or she will not be put in any form of harsh treatment just because he or she is accused of a crime. Each and everybody is given the right to a fair trial regardless if he or she belong to any ethnicity, social minority, religion age or any other bracket of society. Other basic necessities and basic rights are given for the accused because the only way in which they can be proven guilty or innocent is through a fair trail. Violation of human rights done to accused people starts when harsh treatment and other cruel handling are done ("The U.S. Constitution Online", 2006). The Sixth Amendment The Sixth Amendment states that the accused has the right to a fast public trial in all of criminal persecutions and that it shall be done by an impartial State jury and in the district in where the trail is eligible. The accused is also entitled to be informed of the nature of his accusations, the district in which the crime has supposedly been committed confrontations with the witnesses against him and as well as acquiring witnesses in his behalf as well as providing a Counsel for his defense ("The US Constitution Online", 2006). This amendment focuses on the trial process itself, which in any case should be done in an arranged and peaceful manner where the evidences and affidavit could be fully analyzed. Persons considered as security risks by the government still have chances in proving their innocence against the charges against them with these provisions. The whole case is then taken over by the judiciary process, and the rights of the accused in this period is just a justification of some kind as the States specifically defines that in order for a person to be found guilty, the person should undergo an orderly process which could suddenly be considered as a violation of human rights if they are not properly subjected to it. So for example, if the required number of witnesses in a court trial is not presented while he or she stands in a court, then the trial is not properly facilitated thus the accused runs scot-free because this is not considered as a fair trial. The fourteenth Amendment Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment details the rights of a person once he or she becomes a citizen of the United States of America. This is very applicable to immigrants and honorary citizens wishing for residency within U.S. territory. Upon assimilation in U.S. society, the newly inducted American citizen's rights are laid down and it is now implied that they are now responsible citizens of the country. This amendment also details how newly-inducted U.S. citizens can apply for government office, most especially in Congress. All the requirements and qualification in running for public office are included within the amendment so that it will ensure that persons who are trying to run for public office has the necessary qualifications necessary for a U.S. Congressman to fulfill his daily tasks ("The US Constitution Online", 2006). This amendment also shows that as citizens of the United States, the right to vote corresponds to fulfilling the patriotic duty of choosing the future leaders of the nation in a just and honest fashion. Voting is not just a simple act of writing down who will be the next public leader; it entails a lot of responsibility to a person because the future of their community lies in the hand of the future leader that they vote for. The leaders, as citizens of the United States themselves, in turn should see to it that they oversee the activities of their people and that they should make sound decisions that would benefit the public. Also public leaders should set aside their personal interests so that they may focus on serving the public well in a just and orderly fashion. For the public's part, they should put their trust on their elected leaders as well as work with them for the greater good of the community. Both must work together, after all they have put their trust in their own hands ("National Security", 2006). Conclusion The Bill of Rights or constitutional Amendments details the different rights entitled to a person in a case-to-case basis. These amendments are done in the promotion of peace and justice in the country as well as the protection of human rights of those who are under the jurisdiction of the State. These amendments are also done in such a way that it would not clash with any existing ideals because if that were the case, peace and justice would never be achieved. Although the rights of every person is protected by these amendments under various circumstances, ("The Bill of Rights", 2006) the government still has the final say about the nation's justice and security status ("National Security", 2006). The argument behind this is that whether it is appropriate to compromise personal privacy in the midst of a national security emergency. The fact that people are treated as constituents of the State dehumanizes them in a way that the government is willing to sacrifice them in the hopes of stemming out a single threat. This makes people a little apprehensive in letting the government mess with their privacy. Therefore, in order to achieve both safety and justice, a sort of concession should be arranged between the citizenry and the government so that both goals can be feasibly achieved. This should be done in a way that whatever method applied in the execution of this compromise must not look intimidating or threatening for the people who are much concerned with their human rights and their privacy. Also, this compromise should also include the goals of both parties and at the same time the two should arrive at an agreement that will hold the rights to privacy of the people (the main goal of the people) and the attainment of peace and security and justice within the nation (the main goal of the government). If these agreements would be achieved then both parties can be satisfied and contented with what they have thus ensuring harmony and order within the nation. References "Communications Privacy in the Digital Age". June,1997. Center for Democracy and Technology. Retrieved June 28, 2006 from http://www.cdt.org/digi_tele/9706rpt.html#seven "Constitution of the United States". June 28, 2006. Emory University School of Law Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.law.emory.edu/FEDERAL/usconst.html "National Security" 2006. The White House. Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/index.html Schneier, B. 2006. Schneier on Security. Schneier.com Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2006/05/the_value_of_pr.html "The Avalon Project at Yale Law School". 1996. Yale Law School. Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/rights1.htm "The U.S. Constitution Online."12 May 2006. Steve Mount. Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html "THE BILL OF RIGHTS" .n.d. Usinfo.state.gov. Retrieved June 27, 2006 from http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/billeng.htm Read More