The federal government must often balance protecting individual liberties and providing for order and security. At times, priority is given to one over the other. Take a position on whether the federal government should place more emphasis on protecting individual liberties or providing for order and security.

Use at least one piece of evidence from one of the following foundational documents:

a. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution
b. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
c. The Necessary and Proper Clause

In your response you should do the following:

a. Respond to the prompt with a defensible claim or thesis that establishes a line of reasoning.
b. Support your claim with at least TWO pieces of specific and relevant evidence.

• One piece of evidence must come from one of the foundational documents listed above.
• A second piece of evidence can come from any other foundational document not used as your first piece of evidence, or it may come from your knowledge of course concepts.
c. Use reasoning to explain why your evidence supports your claim or thesis.

The correct answer to this open question is the following.

I am going to take into consideration the 1st. Amendment to the United States Constitution.

It is true that the federal government must often balance protecting individual liberties and providing for order and security. We have seen how, at times, priority is given to one over the other, depending on the circumstances.

However, according to my thinking and belief systems, the federal government should always place more emphasis on protecting individual liberties. Just when the exceptional case is necessary, then the federal government must provide for order and security.

As stated in the 1st. Amendment, citizens must always have their freedom of speech and freely express what they believe is right; this includes reasonable critics of the economic and political systems, as well as to highlight positive attributes too.

Respecting the differences has always been a trademark for true democracies.

It is understandable that in times of conflict, as was the case of WWI and WWII, the government has put restrictions on certain liberties.

Some would say that the September 11 attacks justify the creation of the type of surveillance the government placed on the citizens, but that is when a fine line was crossed between protection and "espionage" without the consent of the citizens.

question - in 1827, john walker, a druggist in a small english town, tipped a splint with sulphur, chlorate of potash, and sulphid of antimony, and rubbed it on sandpaper, and it burst into flame. the druggist had discovered the first friction-chemical match, the kind we use to-day. it is called friction-chemical because it is made by mixing certain chemicals together and rubbing them. although walker's match did not require the bottle of acid, nevertheless it was not a good one. it could be lighted only by hard rubbing, and it sputtered and threw fire in all directions. in a few years, however, phosphorus was substituted on the tip for antimony, and the change worked wonders. the match could now be lighted with very little rubbing, and it was no longer necessary to have sandpaper upon which to rub it. it would ignite when rubbed on any dry surface, and there was no longer any sputtering. this was the phosphorus match, the match with which we are so familiar. according the paragraph what was the benefit of the new phosphorus match? it burst into flame when rubbed on sandpaper. it was made by mixing chemicals. it could be ignited on any dry surface. it threw fire in all directions.

answer - matches required natural chemicals