The world we live in is beginning to grow not only in size but also increase with multiple strong diverse opinions. We have encountered a generation where it seems as if no one can be trust. Therefore the government must do all that is possible to keep the nations security safe. Although American citizens keep referring back to the 14th Amendment for their rights, some feel as if the nation is overstepping their legal boundaries in order to protect us; while others encourage safety procedures.
The 14th Amendment
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures shall not be
Violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation and particularly describing the place to be
Searched and the persons or things to be seized.
In the common reader, each author provides a specific approach to tackling their claim about the issues that have risen with the 14th amendment, despite the different methods that were used; each writer got their central claim across.
Mangu-Wards imminently makes a connection to the reader by starting her essay off with a question that is inevitable, ““Have you ever attended a political event? Sought treatment from a psychiatrist? Had a drink at a gay bar? Visited a fertility clinic?”(11) The reader automatically see’s that majority of Americans are prone to saying, “yes” to this answer. She makes an instant commonality and she then makes a bold statement about her beliefs. “Readers wont respond unless they know what’s at stake. An essential element of argument is establishing why a certain action, policy, or idea matters.” (Ballenger 277) In her opinion American citizens are being overly examined and watched by the government. As she begins her essay she tries to make the reader uncomfortable about the idea of being watched and not having an recognition of it. At this point she has hooked the reader and now is just trying to real them in and satisfy their outlook on the situation. She realizes that our nation has suffered many attacks throughout the years but she is still fixed on her opinion. As I continued to read her essay I began to feel as if she is just uncomfortable with the fact of her private life being exposed. And of course any individual is going to be uncomfortable when they realize that majority (or all) of their accounts can be accessed by the government, but in the end shouldn’t it give you peace to know that people are working hard for our safety. Mangu-Ward believes that the government is doing too much by having surveillance tapes set places in public areas, the ability to see credit card charges, and for the government to have the right to access old records.
“If you’ve ever handled a penny, the government’s got your DNA. Elizabeth E. Jon starts her essay out in a similar format style as Mangu- Ward. She is reaching out to the reader proving that we all are involved in the issues that are going on. She believes that the government’s collection of “abandoned DNA” is a serious problem. She then begins to explain that the government can get amounts of DNA even from something as little as a strand of hair. Her central claim is that the government is overstepping its boundaries and crossing into our privacy rights. Although this day and age there is so much controversy between what crosses the line, due to the fact that we live in a world where there is so much wicked violence. There is a point that we need protection and Americans need it any way that it can be provided. For instance Jon shows evidence of the abandoned DNA collection, “Facing all three obstacles, Seattle police devised a clever ruse to obtain a
DNA sample from John Athan, whom they long suspected in the 1982 murder of a thirteen-year-old girl. Writing on the stationery of a fictitious law firm, the police sent a letter in 2003 to Athan, then living in New Jersey, asking him to join a class action lawsuit to recover overcharged traffic fines. Athan complied, and by licking the return envelope, he provided the detectives with the DNA sample they needed. Athan’s DNA matched that found at the crime scene, and in 2004 he was convicted of second-degree murder. “ (31) In my opinion this shows positive use of the abandoned DNA being put into use, because in the end they caught the murder. Jon then begins to give more examples of how the government is overstepping their limits and as she begins to conclude her essay she uses a softer tone and almost comes to the realization that this is how our nation takes action. “It may be that we are already moving toward a system in which the
Government will have access to the genetic information of everyone in the
Population, which will be used to solve crimes ranging from murders to littering. “ (36)
“Foes of the United States have demonstrated their ability to strike at
the heart of this country. Fear of renewed attacks and a desire for greater
national security have now prompted many to call for improvements in the
National personal identification system.” (37) Quarmby instantly shows the reader the reality of our world.
Quarmby’s essay is much shorter than the other two, but he makes his point quick, informative, and respected. He introduces us to the identification card. Something I had no knowledge about until I read his essay. We live in a nation that is vulnerable to terrorist attack at any given moment. And while most individuals are having trouble letting go of the old security measures they need to rest assured that our government is doing everything possible to keep our nation safe. This identification card is said not to be overstepping the amendments boundaries and could help improve the safety of our nation. Therefore why would any American citizen who has nothing to hide oppose to this idea? “We might scoff at the possibility of such a DNA card ever being introduced in our lifetimes, and may feel protected by the 4th Amendment, but this
is not a clear-cut issue. September 11th may have touched our lives in more
ways than we know. “ (38)
As I read all three essays I was unmoved by the argument each author had to say. Since I have my own beliefs I was a bit bios coming in and reading them, although I gained a lot of new knowledge on the topics that were addressed. In the end majority of American have trouble dealing with the reality that 9/11 did infact change our lives in numerous ways. These new safety measurements simply intimidate Americans. Everyone is going to fight for their rights and privacy, but should it makes us grateful that our nations government are approaching these haunting issues and preparing our nations safety for the future.
