National Security

Garrett Highland
8/18/17
Ocala Star-Banner

A terror attack occurred in a tourist part of the city of Barcelona in Spain. A bus plowed into a crowd of people; injuring over 100 and killing 13. The terror group known as ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack. This attack was in retaliation to countries in coalition to rid the terror group from their borders as stated by “Aamaq”—the group’s news agency.

National security and foreign policy are in the Constitution. This attack puts our country as a whole in a bind as to whether or not we participate in a retaliation against ISIS. We have to utilize our foreign policy and try to figure out a way to put an end to these attacks and to protect the national security of those countries in danger as well as our own national security. The U.S. being the superpower that it is has to decide if it will intervene and use resources to continue the fight against this terror group.

This event brings out nationalistic feelings that are within me. This terror group threatens Democracy as a whole because they want to force everyone and anyone to convert to their ways. The majority of the time they do this forcibly, which is down right wrong. ISIS has already found its way into our country so who’s to say that they couldn’t perform an attack like this on us tomorrow or next month. Our Constitutional Government doesn’t negotiate with terrorists so I feel if we absolutely have to we should retaliate against them.

It is very important that a constitution be written. There are many advantages of having a written constitution. It limits the power of people in leadership positions and makes it so everyone has to follow the constitution. A written constitution makes it a higher law that everyone, even the leader of the country has to follow. Another advantage of a written constitution is that it helps prevent corruption. Having the laws and plan for a government written down make it so people can’t twist the laws of the country.

A written constitution also has some disadvantages as well. These being that sometimes the laws are hard to interpret. People are unsure if you are to adapt the laws to present times or keep them how they were originally made. A written constitution a lot of the time does not specify a long term plan for future problems. It limits the ability of what leaders are able to do to solve future problems because the answer to a problem may be considered unconstitutional to some and constitutional to others thus creating a lot of controversy around written constitutions.

A written constitution is the better route because there are less possibilities for a government to be corrupt. The laws are written down so they aren’t as easy to bend. Government officials can’t as easily bend the laws to accommodate their agenda making it so the chances of having a corrupt government are lower. Overall, written constitutions are better because they limit the government’s power and keep the government from becoming corrupt.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s