1. I believe that President Wilson and Congress were right to criminalize acts that undermined national security in order to effectively and swiftly prosecute this war. But great care must be taken not to undermine civil rights to a point where they are not restored when peace is won. The Constitution allows suspension of rights in certain instances. When America entered the “Great War,” it was no stranger to battle and the issues of national security. The tension between national security and constitutional rights has been in existence ever since the founding of America. Immediately after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it was amended almost immediately with ten constitutional amendments (collectively known as The Bill of Rights), limiting the powers of the federal government and preserving the “natural rights” property ownership, and freedoms of religion, speech, press, free association and assembly as well as the right to bear arms. As early as John Adams’ presidency, Congress passed acts that limited speech seen as “sedition” and made it more difficult for immigrants to obtain naturalized citizenship as a response to potential war with France. Lincoln suspended the privilege of habeas corpus during the Civil War (allowed under the Constitution when “the public safety may require it”) and military tribunals sprang up to try confederate sympathizers (although that effort was squelched by the Supreme Court: see Ex parte Milligan). The President and Congress have been given war powers under the Constitution and Federal Law that were put in place to protect national security. I believe that with this power comes a great responsibility to ensure that the least amount of infringement on civil liberties is imposed while protecting the safety of Americans. In World War I, by making the commitment to send over 2,000,000 soldiers to aid Britain and France, America invested not only its finances, but more importantly, its current generation of young men and women. The emotional stake in making sure the war was won quickly and decisively, and that the troops came safely home, added to the push to see dissenters as “enemy agents.” To bring a country from isolationism to full-time war mobilization in less than a year was a daunting task. The patriotic fervor that was aroused through popular culture (e.g. George M. Cohen’s “Over There” and patriotic movies produced by Hollywood), together with newspaper reporters and government programs supporting the war, were influential in raising support for the war effort. Of course there were abuses. The difficulty lies in extremism and vigilantism. Citizen discrimination against German-Americans and mob-style lynching were the result of frightened people reacting in a mindless frenzy against anyone who appeared to be a threat to the home front. Wilson cautioned the population in his War Speech that he was not making war on the German people. But through use of propaganda, all Germans were dehumanized, not just the Kaiser’s regime. Words are powerful tools and must be chosen carefully and wisely.
2. There are three ways to look at the statement “bend the Constitution in order to save it.” The first way is to interpret “bend” as extending powers to the President or Congress that allows them to suspend certain individual rights during war time or threats to domestic security. In Ex Parte Milligan, the issue was whether martial law trumped the Constitution. It was argued that without internal security, peace and rule of law, there is no way to enforce our Constitution. However, the majority opinion of the Supreme Court at the time was as long as U.S. Courts were open the Constitution was the law of the land. And as noted above, in the Constitution, the President had the authority, in certain cases, to suspend habeas corpus. The second way to “bend” the Constitution is through decisions handed down by the Supreme Court as they examine the constitutionality of enacted laws. Judicial activism turned the tide for the civil rights movement in the stunning Brown v. Board of Education decision. The strength of the Constitution is in the fact that it was written to establish self-government in whatever form the citizens chose while protecting certain “unalienable rights” by establishing a balance of power. As our country progressed and matured, those principles would be tested under fire. The third way to “bend” the Constitution is by ratification of Amendments. During Wilson’s presidency, two progressive amendments were ratified: the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibition of alcohol and the Nineteenth Amendment, granting women the right to vote. The amendment process is the most democratic way of bending the Constitution and the most conservative. As the Constitution spells out the balance of power in government, so must the agents of change to the Constitution itself be balanced. The executive may “bend” the Constitution in times of war and the Supreme Court in times of peace. I believe that the balance that was created protects civil liberties and allows for expansion of those liberties through legal and democratic means. Any “bending” of the Constitution that impinges on those liberties is met by restoration of those rights through political action.
No comments:
Post a Comment