Just how powerful should the government be? That’s a legitimate
question, especially as terrorist threats continue to grow in this post-911
world. Giving the government the authority to tighten security and watch over
its citizens does help keep the nation safe. But at what point is it too
much? At what point do civil liberties get jeopardized? Don’t worry—there are
plenty of political theorists, defense specialists, and constitutional scholars
arguing that issue right now.
In October 2001, just a month after the dreadful September
11th terrorist attacks, President George W. Bush signed the PATRIOT
Act into law (“PATRIOT” is an acronym for “Providing Appropriate
Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism”).
This Act immediately increased the Executive Branch of the government, which
includes the President of the United States, the military, and various
law-enforcing agencies.
The passing of the PATRIOT Act gave law-enforcers more
leeway to monitor strange activity. This includes everything from tapping phone
lines and examining Internet communication to issuing search warrants.
Supporters of the Act (about half of the American population) claim that
this new authority is necessary for the government to stay on top of terrorism
and keep Americans safe.
Because only half of the nation supports the PATRIOT Act,
it’s probably safe to assume that the other half does not support it.
Critics claim that this new governmental authority invades the privacy and
civil liberties of the people. They also point out that expanding the role of
the President and the Executive Branch of government throws off the entire
“checks and balances” system of democracy, thus turning the nation’s leader
into more of a King than a President.
One thing is certain—nobody wants that to happen. In 1787,
the nation’s framers designed the Constitution and the democratic form of government
to avoid the mistakes of the monarchy (which they had recently gained
independence from). With that said, could the PATRIOT Act force the
American people to take bold action to reduce the power of the President? In
essence, could it lead to another Magna Carta? Hopefully it won’t come to
that, but it’s worth getting a “historical perspective.”
The Magna Carta (Latin for the “Great Charter”) was
written by a group of wealthy British landowners in the year 1212. It was the
first document that recognized that average citizens had certain human rights
and civil liberties. In other words, it claimed that freedom was more powerful
than the authority of the King (something that was virtually unthinkable at
the time).
The Magna Carta was written in response to King John’s abuse
of authority. In the early 13th century, John waged several
unpopular wars against France, and he found himself at odds with the Pope and
the Catholic Church. More importantly, he wasn’t consulting the British people
on any of his decisions. King John was literally forced to sign the
Magna Carta by a group of angry Barons who were once his loyal subjects. The
document did little good at the time (King John continued to basically do as
he pleased), but it brought forth ideas that shaped future
democracies—including the United States.
Fortunately, the United States government features a few
more “checks and balances” than the British monarchy did in the Middle Ages.
The three branches of government (Executive, Legislative, and Judicial) must
constantly seek the approval of the other branches, which keeps any one branch
from growing too powerful.
While the PATRIOT Act may be extremely necessary, especially
during dangerous times, it also needs to be watched closely. If the Executive
Branch ever becomes too powerful, it throws the American democracy off
kilter—and nobody wants to force the President to sign a new Magna Carta.
