First Round Excerpts From 1998-99 Essay Contest

The Role Of Personal Responsibility In Balancing
Individual Liberty And The Common Good

Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

1st Lori Peltier     2nd Thomas Hood     3rd Andrea Reedy

"The founding fathers had faith in America and Americans. They knew individual liberties would come with individual accountability and thus the good of the whole could be protected. They realized that there could be no real freedom without the freedom to fail."
Jason Tholstrup, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Our founding fathers did place a greater emphasis on the protection of our community over our individual liberties. They knew there would be horrific problems to be faced, and they felt the community as a whole was more important than individual rights. Why protect the rights of certain individuals when you can protect the rights of all."
Travis Esslinger, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The founding fathers wrote the constitution to protect our newly founded American. The founding fathers placed greater emphasis on individual liberty over the protection of the community. At the time the framers of the Constitution had just experienced the victory of the Revolutionary war. After just escaping the rule of a non-democratic country. Individual liberty was very valuable to the authors of the constitution."
Andrea Reedy, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"In most cases, when the government issues something toward people as a whole it is for the better. The police and courts should have the final say in establishing laws for individual rights. They actually see what is working and what is not. They know what is having the best effect on the people and society. The relation to insurance is made through the government and the people. The government sees how types of insurance are effecting the people. They know what is best for the people. They should take advantage of their situation and make it mandatory for people to pay insurance. The government should show the advantages to the people and give them what they need, not what they want."
Josh Smith, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Though many feel we are too regulated by laws and what we see as restrictions on our personal freedom, we must put the safety of the community over the wants of individuals. We must not allow gangs to roam free committing violent crimes and robbing society of the freedom given us by the constitution."
Matt Forshee, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The government must protect the public to a certain degree. However, they do not have the power to deny our rights. Only in situations where the community is in danger, may certain freedoms be denied. Where the Internet is concerned, full freedom should be granted. The public can still be protected, without censoring the Internet. It will take a delicate "balancing act" to decide how far either side can go. In this case, the balancing should be left to the parents, and local communities."
Amy C. Eustice, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia found a D.C. curfew law unconstitutional because it did not differentiate between juveniles who were unlikely to cause harm from those who were likely to cause problems. A. U. S. Court of Appeals found that a Dallas curfew law satisfied the constitution because it was intended to protect teenagers. The American Civil Liberties Union says curfew laws violate the first amendment, fourth amendment, and equal protection under the fifth amendment. The District of Columbia ACLU legal director was quoted as saying, "In this country, the government can't make it a crime to stand on the side walk and look at the stars, walk the dog, or go the 7-11 for a quart of milk." This is basically what curfew ordinances do ("Teen Curfews Rise in U. S." 12). The ACLU says that the drop in teen-crime rates in cities with curfews does not justify the use of curfews. It also says curfews amount to nothing more than age discrimination. Curfews punish all teenagers who are out a certain hour, even though only a small minority of teenagers might be committing crimes ("Do Curfews Punish Innocent Teens?"15). Barbara Bey contends that curfews are unconstitutional because they, "Interfere with the democratic right of an individual to function in a free society."
Paul Detrixhe, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The balance of rights and welfare should fall under the duties of the federal government. The police and courts are merely there to re-enforce the laws of the government. If balancing was left to police and courts, the rights and welfare could vary from different communities. This could cause serious problems."
Marcus Deaver, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"In the "Library Bill of Rights in Cyberspace" librarians cannot stop minors from doing anything on the Internet. In this situation, a little more emphasis should be put on the protection of community. However, we need to find a way to protect some individual liberties; like an adult's right to view sexual material. This is not an easy thing to do, but it can be done. The Internet has users across the globe, and I think the problem lies there. An American system will not keep kids from viewing pornography from China. Also all the systems thus far proposed have been "passive blocking software," meaning they are not able to keep kids out (Rogers 2). The only way to deal with this is to somehow give every user of the Internet an identification number. Whenever they sign up for service on the Internet, they will be given an identification number with a password of the users choice. This would be implemented throughout the world. A central computer would monitor the use of the people and would prohibit all those under 18 to view sexual material.
Right now the government is trying to devise a plan to solve the Internet problem, but it is very complicated. The public has to understand it will not be an overnight process. They need to have faith that our government will do its job and adapt to these new found problems."
Brandon Bowers, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Unlike the Gun Free-School Zones Act where the federal government has no jurisdiction over interstate commerce, the federal government should be allowed to interfere with smoking regulations wherever and whenever needed. Allowing smoking in and around schools and public facilities kills people just as guns do. Smoking regulations do not take away individual rights because everyone is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Smokers impose on non-smokers, keeping them from a long life and happiness."
Katherine Benner, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"In a "Brady Bunch" world, the idea of government controlling behavior for the common good would be ridiculous because everyone would be responsible for his or her own behaviors. When the Supreme Court ruled against the Gun-Free School Act and was involved it just made the issue of bring guns to school worse. If the Supreme Court would be involved with teens and teen pregnancy the issue would also get worse. The government just needs to stay out of being involved with teen pregnancy. Even in a real world the idea of government controlling sexual activities is just as ludicrous. It would be impossible for a government entirely to keep stats on such an endeavor. Besides there are many issues that affect the sexual issue, such as home life, religion, values, and morals. Granted citizens need to be more responsible for their actions and the U. S. is paying for poor decisions, but sexuality is hardly a legislative area."
Michelle Fuller, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Handguns are more lethal than a lit cigarette in the sense that a handgun can kill anyone faster than cigarette smoke ever will. Yet, the Supreme Courts allowed the states to set up their own regulations concerning the control of guns in a school zone. The federal government seems to be just as worried about teens carrying cartons of Marlboro's as handguns. The problem of high taxes and the threat of prohibition caused an increase of organized crime due to the emerging black market in California.
In conclusion, tobacco prohibition should be left up to the individual. The welfare of the community won't be significantly harmed because of smokers. The government appears to be more concerned with money than protecting the people of the United States. Tobacco prohibition isn't the answer to the tobacco problem. Next, caffeine, fatty foods, and many other simple pleasures will be illegal, only because they aren't healthy. The restrictions placed on tobacco have nothing to do with protecting Americans. People should be wary of another limitation involving everyone's daily life. Especially, when there are many solutions to be implemented instead of prohibition."
Andrea Reedy, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The government should have some limits on what it can take away. This country was built on individuality, it is important to realize that the welfare of the community and the rights of the individual go hand in hand. Our founding fathers gave us the bill of rights to protect the individual, so the individual can protect the community. The police and court's job is to serve the public, and the public's job is to vote. That way they can balance the welfare of the community with the individual's rights. The Supreme Court's ruling against the Gun-Free School Zones Act was a good thing. It allowed people to have more freedom and uphold the constitution. The only bad thing is it could have possibly cut down on violence and the number of guns carried to school."
Tom Hood, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"If teen pregnancies continue getting worse each year, then the government may have to step in. However, the first step begins in the home. It is the duty of the parents to teach their children personal responsibility and good moral values. However, it seems that some parents are just not getting the job done.
   Though the government is not always the best answer, it usually does get results. Although the government sometimes steps in too quickly, other times it is inevitable that the government become involved. Nothing has really been done to effectively lower the number of adolescent births from one year to the next. Parents do not seem to be doing their part as far as teaching moral values and personal responsibility. If the solution we're looking for is a balance in individual liberty and the common good, then we are seeking the aid of the government. In this situation, I feel that the government would be justified in helping to regulate teen pregnancy."
James Kindel, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Buckling up is a personal responsibility. People will buckle up if they know that the police are enforcing the law, which is what will happen when the government regulates seatbelt laws. Just as people drive a reasonable speed on the highway because they know they can be fined for driving unreasonably fast, people will buckle up if they know that they will be ticketed and fined for not wearing a seatbelt. Rodney E. Slater, the Secretary of Transportation best sums it up when he says, "We have an unprecedented opportunity to save lives, prevent injuries, reduce health care and other costs, and improve the lives of all Americans-simply by increasing proper seatbelt and child safety seat use."
Kristine Keil, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Rules set by a community are made to benefit an individual's rights. The regulations a community has are designed to accommodate a majority of individual members' interest. There is no possible way to keep every single person perfectly happy; instead we try to maintain a "happy medium."
Lindsey M. Pounds, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling against the Gun Free School Zones Act. Students are in school to get an education, not to worry about protesting and defending themselves, which should be left up to the administration."
Lindsey M. Pounds, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The Supreme Court declared the Gun-Free School Zone Act unconstitutional. People feared it would be the start of a national police."
Amy C. Eustice, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"Many people believe that taking away guns will solve crime. In fact, they say that one out of every 20 children will either be hurt or killed by a gun. These people fail to realize that the person operating the gun has some control in the situation. They think that if they control the gun no one will be able to get hurt by one. Well, if they outlaw guns what will be next? Are they going to outlaw pop because it is not good for a person? Instead of taking away guns they should teach more self control in schools. Gun control is an attempt to take away our freedom."
Tom Hood, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas

"The United States is supposed to be the land of the free, a land where the Constitution rules and all people, young and old, have equal rights under the law.
   Curfews on any age group are clearly unconstitutional. The First Amendment states: 'Congress shall make no law abridging the right of the people peaceably to assemble.'). This guarantee of freedom to assemble is the exact right that this law takes away. It is not consistent to have young people recite the Pledge of Allegiance (liberty and justice for all) by day and then take away their liberty at night for no reason other than age. Restricting the movement of "free" Americans is an obvious trespass of their First Amendment rights. Juvenile curfews punish many law-abiding citizens by putting them under virtual house arrest. Because they can't vote, their rights are not even considered.
   Government gets around this unconstitutional law by stating, 'Why worry about the First Amendment when one can claim to be reducing the crime rate, yet affect no voters.' The last time I checked, the Constitution gave everyone the same and equal rights. (No matter what their age!).
Sure people in the community should be safe with no worries, but rights of teenagers should not suffer to solve this problem. Rights are a tremendous thing to give away and too sacred to lose.
Curfew laws punish those who are guilty of nothing but being teenagers. These laws lump the good kids in with people who are out to break the law.
   I think that it makes sense for children not to be out on the street late at night, but I think parents ought to be the ones to make the decision without interference from the government. Curfews interfere with parental rights of child rearing. The government has been involved in many controversial topics.. In most cases I believe that the police force should catch and punish the teenagers. This topic is an exception. I definitely believe that parents should be in charge of their children and should be able to decide when their child should return home. In a free society, shouldn't it be the right of parents, not of government, to decide where their children may be and what they may do at night?
   I believe that curfews should only be used in emergency situations. Teenagers need to be given trust in order for them to feel worthy. Young adults need to learn responsibility and by forcing curfews upon them they gain anything but that.
Curfews are a danger to a free society, and they stand as a declaration, not of success, but of failure. Failure of parents to control their children, failure of community organizations to exert a positive influence and failure of local government to provide effective law enforcement."
Lori Peltier, Concordia High School, Concordia, Kansas                                    

Back