Anti-Federalists and the Bill of Rights

Anti federalists pushed for the bill of rights to be included in the constitution because they were

concerned that without it the constitution drafted by the federalists would give too much power to the

federal government by not sufficiently protecting the individuals and states' rights. Furthermore, the

Anti-federalists believed too strong a central government could turn tyrannical, take away state’s

autonomy, and lack direct representation from citizens from each state. And so, the Bill of Rights was

tied into the constitution to solidify the civil liberties of the individual and states alike making them the

first ten amendments to the constitution. Civil liberties like the First Amendment's protection of the

citizens freedom of speech, religion, and assembly. The Second Amendment’s protection of the right to

bear arms, the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Fifth

Amendment protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy so on and so forth. All are meant

to guarantee the citizens' rights and protect them from the central government.

Civil Liberties

The Supreme Court has done a great deal in terms of expanding civil liberties in the United States

since the bill of rights was created. The Court has predominantly done this through its interpretation of the 14th

Amendment to the Constitution. This Is because the 14th amendment extended many of the Bills of Rights

protections to the states (like how it was added to the constitution for the states protection from the federal

government), making it so that state governments could not infringe upon the individual's rights. The Court's

decisions have illustrated this balance of power between individuals and the government with many cases. For

instance, Gideon v. Wainwright established the right to legal counsel for anyone who cannot afford it, ensuring

a fair trial. This case called upon the 6th Amendment's right to counsel, which guarantees individuals the right

to legal representation in court and the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause to essentially make the legal

counsel available to everyone regardless of wealth (oyez). Another case in which the Supreme Court expanded

civil liberties would be the case of Texas v. Johnson in which the Supreme Court reinforced the First
Amendment's protection of freedom of speech and expression; even when it involves controversial or offensive

conduct (Bitzer, B. M. 2023). And in cases like Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court defended the individual's

right to privacy calling upon the 1st,3rd,4th,9th, and 14th amendments thereby protecting individual decisions to use

birth control.

National Security

When it comes to national security, expanding government surveillance is a controversial topic

with a lot of gray areas. On the pro side of it, one could argue that increased surveillance enhances

public safety by providing authorities with the tools to detect and prevent terrorist activities and cyber

threats alike. And it’s true, surveillance could aid in early warning and crisis management, furthering the

protection of citizens. But when does it go too far, when do they cross the line? Heightened surveillance

can easily violate an individual's privacy and civil liberties. And it could potentially lead to abuse of

power and the erosion of personal freedoms for the general public. And so, mass surveillance programs,

if not regulated and transparent, could potentially jeopardize the very values they set out to protect. ‘

However, at the end of the day, I think the government should keep doing what they are doing now in

terms of surveillance. If they are spying on me, I do not know it and I do not care. I am not doing

anything with malicious intent or participating in terrorist activities and those people who do seriously

flag the government with their google searches I would think usually flag them for a reason. I trust the

government enough, I should not but I do. I do think there needs to be greater surveillance on things

where there have been consistent leaks of classified information. Take for instance the game war

thunder where in its chat rooms, a reported 11-30 restricted or declassified documents have been

leaked breaching national security (Hollings, A. 2023). So, we should decrease civil liberties in the name

of national security but only when prompted and necessary.

Free Speech and Corporations

 I do not believe the free speech clause of the US Constitution grants corporations the right

to unlimited campaign contributions to politicians. While I do think corporations can and should have

freedom of speech, I also believe money corrupts and unlimited contributions to a campaign will

inevitably lead to political manipulation somewhere. But even given that information, there are still

some potential arguments to be made in favor of corporations. One could argue that making donations

to campaigns falls under the purview of free speech, enabling the corporation to express their political

views and support candidates who align with their interests. This in theory promotes a diversity of

voices in the political arena and enhances the democratic process. So, corporations deserve to have a

voice like any other entity. On the other hand, it is when corporations influence policy/politics for their

own gain but at the expense of the people should the people have a problem. To be more precise,

unlimited campaign contributions by corporations could lead to the excessive influence of money in

politics, potentially compromising the integrity of the electoral system. If you look at the election

immediately following the United v. FEC case, you can see that roughly $6 billion was spent on the

election but a staggering $933 million came for corporations (Jimenez, G. 2016)

$6 billion was spent on the election by candidates, parties, and outside groups. Of that, $933 million

came directly from companies, unions, and individuals funneling money into Super PACs specifically

enabled by Citizens United.

The fear is that unlimited contributions can create a situation where the voices of wealthy entities

drown out those of ordinary citizens, making the principle of "one person, one vote." Almost worthless.
 References

Bitzer, B. M. (2023, September 20). Texas v. Johnson (1989) . The Free Speech Center.
https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/texas-v-johnson-1989/

Hollings, A. (2023, October 3). How serious are “war thunder’s” classified document leaks? How serious
are “War thunder’s” classified leaks? https://www.sandboxx.us/news/how-serious-are-warthunders-
classified-document-leaks/#:~:text=Challenger%202%20Main%20Battle%20Tank&text=What%20was
%20leaked%3A%20A%20player,2%20properly%20in%20the%20game.

Jimenez , G. C., & Pulos, E. (2016). 11. corporations and politics: After citizens united. Good Corporation
Bad Corporation Corporate Social Responsibility in the Global Economy.
https://milnepublishing.geneseo.edu/good-corporation-bad-corporation/chapter/11-
corporations-and-politics-after-citizens-united/
Gideon v. Wainwright. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 4, 2023, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1962/155