Is there a danger that if constitutional rights are limited during a nationalemergency they may not be given back to the people when the emergencyis over? Support your answer with information from a text.

Explanation:

The scope of private property rights in the United States has been greatly reduced during the 20th century. Much of the reduction occurred episodically, as governmental officials took control of economic affairs during national emergencies—mainly wars, depressions, and actual or threatened strikes in critical industries. Derogations from private rights that occurred during national emergencies often remained after the crises had passed. A “ratchet” took hold. People adjusted first their actions, then their thinking, to accommodate themselves to emergency governmental controls. Later, lacking the previous degree of public support, private property rights failed to regain their pre-crisis scope.

Emergency restrictions of private property rights are by no means of concern only to historians of the growth of governmental power. Today, emergency restrictions limit many private rights, and many more sweeping restrictions could be lawfully imposed at the President’s discretion. The possibility is real. Like several presidents before him, Ronald Reagan has dipped repeatedly into the government’s reservoir of emergency economic powers. The potential exists for the greatly expanded use—and abuse—of such powers.

on june 23, 1972, the president signed title ix of the education amendments of 1972, 20 u.s.c. into law. title ix is a comprehensive federal law that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex in any federally funded education program or activity.