Liberty > Security

R1: Unconstitutional Primary Argument America's political foundation was conveyed precisely in the Declaration of Independence, which signaled two axioms [1] about the purpose of government: (1) All humans have natural liberty, and this freedom may not be infringed upon without his or her consent; (2) People's unalieanable rights are inherent within individuals. The Constitution adhered to this fundamental principles. By crafting a government with numerous internal restraints, this founding document solidified the structure of America's federalist government. Why does this matter though? The Constitution, through its elaborate framework, ensured that the two aforementioned axioms in the Declaration of Independence could not be constrained (through a legal standpoint). Therefore, the American government's purpose was to secure the people's rights — not to ensure maximum security. Counter-Argument What if my opponent was right — that the government ought to preserve security above our liberty? If this idea was true, we would expect the Constitution to grant the federal government liberal and nearly unlimited powers in the name of "preserving national security". We can see from the words our founders spoke to disprove this notion: "Standing armies are... at most, problematical and uncertain." — Alexander Hamilton [2] "Standing armies... have always been the instruments of tyranny at home." — James Madison [3] "A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." — James Madison [4] "Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion in private self defense." — John Adams [4] Governmental policy, whether it be unauthorized wiretapping of telephones, a standing military, domestic torture and indefinite detention... could all be argued to increase our national defense (even though I've disproved this in the previous round). Since the Constitution has outlawed measures that would potentially trade some liberty for additional security, we can come to the conclusion that the Constitution, while ensuring national security, upholds liberty as the greatest aspiration of all individuals. In fact, by guaranteeing the right to bear arms, the government essentially upholds liberty above security to ensure security. In other words, people protect themselves by having the freedom to bear firearms. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R2: Anarchy v. Totalitarianism "[Pro] is offering a basic government that creates the greatest amount of freedom conceivably possible... [which is] in effect offering total anarchy." Con this conclusion — is just not true. A limited government can protect a nation's defense better than a lawless, anarchist society. A limited government, for instance, could raise a militia and a navy to protect the nation's borders. "The only task then as far as I can tell, for the government is to provide the minimum security necessary for liberty to flourish." I'd agree. However, with the government protecting the people's liberty, what is emphasized? Security where the government clamps down on private life in order to "maximize" the idea of security? Or liberty where people are free to live their lives, and pursue their greatest dreams and aspirations? Since liberty would be more prevalent — and should be according to the Constitution — liberty would be a more important value than security. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R3: Un-American "The Constitution does not provide any more natural constraint on itself." This claim is false. There are wide ranging checks within America's government. If Obama had unlimited powers to wage war, we probably would have entered the Syrian conflict. The only reason the Constitution seems more ineffective is because people are becoming more liberal with their interpretations to justify their policies. We, as I've advocated, must use original intent to determine constitutionality of a governmental action. This simple graphic is the most concise, and the Constitution [5] verifies all of these measures. "Law is constantly changing, in response to many factors." Just because the law changes, doesn't mean the Constitution does. Why does this document — which is over two centuries old — matter? The reason is because it protects the rights of American citizens, and authorizes governmental activity in a way that limits governmental intrusion in our private lives. If we start making exceptions and becoming liberal in our interpretation, the system falls apart. The government could mandate universal, compulsory military service in the name of "national defense", even though this essentially enslaves a society. The government could subsidize favorited businesses in the name of the "public good", even though the minority gains at the public's expense. Using a strict interpretation of the Constitution and its enumerated powers is the only way to operate a limited government that protect's the people's rights and ensures their liberty. Con also didn't refute my analysis in R2 which argued the significance of the Constitution. "It's absurd to think that rights can be granted from above" I agree, rights are inherent within individuals. "or that the law is its own constraint when select men are given the power to create it." To dispel this notion, let us simply consider it. If men were given the power to create law and change it at will, as my opponent implies, the Constitution would be worthless. People could just change it when they felt like it! However, there are wide ranging interactions within the government that limit the scope of the government and its expansion. The Bill of Rights, the relative independence of the Judicial Branch, the separation of powers, the checks and balances present within the government, and other operations limit the scope of governmental change. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- R4: Failure of the War on Terror I'm glad that we find common ground Con. I would argue that unconstitutional government operations continue because they are hidden in massive budgets, with the details blurred and usually difficult to comprehend. People have also moved to a more liberal interpretation of the Constitution, which reduces its validity and utility."the people are endowed with the ability to protect themselves rather than letting the elevated authority act as its own watchdog"If you advocate that the people should have the liberty to protect themselves, you are sort of arguing for liberty over security. Individuals would have the freedom to defend themselves (through firearms, or other means). --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Conclusion The nature of America's government has been laid out in our founding documents. America has been an exceptional nation precisely because we have emphasized the inherent value of human beings, and the individual liberties that people possess. Not only does this liberty lead to general prosperity, human dignity, happiness, and more, it also allows people to defend themselves and their communities. The idea that the government should violate the social contract it was founded upon, in the name of national security, is not only unconstitutional, un-American, and widely unpopular among the American people, it will not work. Thanks Con for a terrific debate, and the readers for investing their time to evaluate our arguments.