Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security.

"The Bill of Rights should not be made into a suicide pact." Because I agree with this quote by Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, I negate the resolution. Resolved: A just government ought to prioritize civil liberties over national security. I define the important terms as follows: Civil Liberties: as defined by About News, are the rights guaranteed to citizens or residents of a country or territory as a matter of fundamental law. National Security: as defined by Dr. Diane A. Desierto of Yale University, entails the psychological and physical safety to prevent both direct and indirect threats and risks primarily from abroad. Ought: as defined in Oxford Dictionary, implies moral obligation. It is very possible for civil liberties and national security to coexist, they are both important. It is not a zero sum game. This debate is talking about when these civil liberties and national security come into conflict with one another. As the negative, I do not have to prove that national security should be prioritized over civil liberties 100% of the time, just when there is a significant threat to national security. I will be valuing: Utilitarianism: defined in Merriam Webster"s dictionary as, the greatest happiness of the greatest number. Because we need to define what this happiness is" My value criterion is: Protecting the safety of citizens. We should prefer my framework because the first priority of a just government is to protect the right to life of their citizens. Today, the negative will show that when there is a significant threat to national security a just government has an obligation to defend itself from these threats, and ought to do everything in its power to defend itself from this threat even if that means it temporarily restricts certain civil liberties. Contention One: The first priority of a just government is to protect the lives of its citizens. According to John Locke, the author of the social contract, the first duty of the government is to "preserve the members of the commonwealth in peace from injury and violence." Locke goes on to explain that this is the point of the social contract, that citizens will surrender some of their rights, or civil liberties, for protection by the government. The reason we have a government is to protect its citizens" lives. That"s not to say that liberties are not important, they are, but there can be no liberties with no life. The first priority of a just government is to protect the safety of its citizens. Therefore, taking steps to achieve this goal would maximize greater utility and thus, is what a just government ought to do. Contention Two: There is no such thing as an unlimited right. There are conditions under which rights can justifiably be limited. You can"t scream bomb on an airplane. You can"t shout fire in a crowded movie theater. While you certainly have a right to free speech, that right can justifiably be limited if and when it poses a threat to the safety of others. It is just to hinder an individual"s rights to protect the wellbeing of others. John Stuart Mill elaborates on this point saying, "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." Limiting the civil liberties of certain individuals is just when it is protecting the safety of others. I remind the judge that we are only talking about when there is a significant threat to national security. In those circumstances, because the first priority of a just government is to protect the safety of its citizens, a just government would prioritize national security.