First Round Excerpts From 1998-99 Essay Contest

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

  Avoyelles High School, Avoyelles, Louisana

1st Annie St. Romain     2nd Nicole Bordelon 3rd Jeremy Beckham

"The community as a whole is more important than an individual, because the individual's purpose is to serve the community."
Gabriel Gillory, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The Constitution's preamble clearly states that the purpose of the Constitution was to 'insure domestic tranquility, provide for common defense, and to promote the general welfare.'  All of these things are basic and general, which shows that they are directed to the people as a whole, and not to individuals.  The whole purpose of the Constitution was to bring our country together in groups--North, South, etc.--but not as individuals.  The laws and policies of our nation also contain things that are intended for the protection of the people, but at the same time they curtail the person's personal liberty.  These laws are intended for the welfare of the community as a whole, but in doing so individuals, in a way, are not protected.  This shows that our founding fathers put greater emphasis on the protection of the people as a whole, and not as individuals."
Paula Fontenot, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Curfew ordinances in the United States should be regulated by the government for the common good."
Lauren Dorgant, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Our government has attempted to control the lives of young citizens in our communities by imposing curfew ordinances.  Many teenagers are not responsible enough for their own actions, and so the law officials must prevent them from becoming too irresponsible and possibly endangering the lives of people in their communities.  This is a case of a good balance of personal liberty and public welfare, in that the young people are allowed to stay out late enough to have a good time, and also the public is not at risk during the late hours of the night."
Beth Lacour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Our founding fathers saw fit to punish those who have done wrong against the society.  They also found it fit to prosecute those who have done wrong themselves.  When someone is charged with murder, it is not the victim's family that brings justice to the murderer.  Instead the state seeks out and finds the murderer and prosecutes the offender as an enemy of the state as a whole, not an enemy of the victim's family.  This is an example of why I agree with the statement that the founding fathers put more emphasis on the good of the community than on the personal freedoms of any one person."
Cliff LaCour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Our founding fathers were more interested in making laws that would protect the community rather than individual liberty.  It was a time when the citizens of our new developing country were excited to make this work.  They were willing to set aside individual wants for the greater common good.  At this time in history, there were fewer individual choices than there are now.  Now there are more choices because there is more opportunity for all."
Emily Gremillion, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"When the Constitution was written, its founders wrote out the freedoms of individuals without actually taking into account the greater effect these personal liberties would have on the entire public and so now our government is faced with the problem of trying to balance out the laws to help both the welfare of the public and the rights of its individual citizens."
Beth Lacour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Our founding fathers placed more emphasis on individual well-being rather than upon the common good.  They also allowed for personal responsibility to override the specifics of the law.  By this beginning, our nation has brown accustomed to placing personal responsibility first."
Kelsey Ann Lemoine, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The whole purpose for them fighting for their freedom was so that they would have all the rights that are now listed in the Constitution."
Chantel Skelton, Avoyelles, High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Personal responsibility plays a major part in the balance between individual liberty and the overall common good.  Before personal responsibility is allowed, limits must be set by officials of higher authority.  I believe the law supersedes personal freedom, to some extent.  By setting broad limits on each individual law pertaining to the common good, government officials can control overall well-being, but still allow for individuals to regulate their own stricter borders without the law becoming overbearing.  The great, influential statement attributed to Patrick Henry, 'Give me liberty or give me death' accurately states that if you don't have individual liberty to live your life to the fullest, that life just might just as well not have been lived."
Kelsey Ann Lemoine, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"If a citizen does not respond or report a public mishap (such as a damaged road or a desecration of a public building), he or she does the community an injustice by withholding information that could heighten the common good.  Give the community what it needs"
Gabriel Gillory, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The Gun-Free School Zones Act made it illegal to carry a firearm within 1000 feet of a school.  Congress claimed it had the right to make such a law based on its constitutional right to regulate commerce.  The Supreme Court felt that the carrying of a firearm was only indirectly related with commerce and therefore unconstitutional.  This act was passed to lower the amount of violent crimes related to guns, but according to Maurice J. Schoenbrun '...adult responsibility and self-discipline is the main cure.'  That is the only cure that would not invade personal liberties."
Jeremy Beckham, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Congress passed a decree making it illegal to carry a gun within one thousand feet of a school.  The Supreme Court, when trying a related case, declared the law unconstitutional, stating that it is the duty of individual state governments, not the national government, to pass such regulations.  This decision was warranted because it indeed infringed upon the constitutional rights of American citizens.  Because Americans are given express permission to carry a firearm, no one has the power to take this privilege away.  Also, in some school systems, security guards patrol campuses to ensure safety of students and personnel.  If this ordinance were deemed constitutional, these officers would be forced to lay down their defense weapons, thus jeopardizing the security of that campus.  However, some aspects of the Congressional law are justifiable because, in most cases, carrying guns to or around a school endangers others.  In school systems, public encounters are inevitable.  Accidental shootings can easily occur in so close an environment if any individual exercises his right to carry a gun.  Not all school shootings are accidental either.  In the 1997-1998 school session, six schools were reported as having fatal shooting incidents, and the perpetrators were all students who had previously attended these schools.  Today, firearms can be more easily obtained than ever.  'The number of firearms in circulation nationwide has jumped from about fifty-four million in 1960 to an estimated 192 million today.'"
Amanda Singleton, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The Supreme Court's ruling against the Gun-Free School Zones Act is wrong because the government should be protecting the students.  Although it is stated in the United States Constitution that we have the right to bear arms, I do not believe that a student or ordinary citizen should be allowed to carry a gun on school grounds.  The Federal Center for Disease Control and Prevention cites that firearms are responsible for more deaths to United States teenagers than all natural diseases combined, and in two recent years seventy-nine people died in shootings at schools."
Jenna Pastor, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The Supreme Court's ruling against the Gun-Free School Zones Act was an ironic one.  If they had voted in its favor, it would have been a huge step toward the curtailing of personal liberties for the common good.  It would also have gained the support of many concerned parents, who in return wouldn't mind having a few of their liberties curtailed for the sake of the common good.  Although they made an ironic decision, it was the correct one, and it was supported by many who believed that this new law would have denied them their right to bear arms.  It was also a good decision because it halted future laws that would try to take this right away.  These cases are difficult to decide, because they have many pros and cons on both sides.  Although ruling that benefit whole communities may seem righteous, they are not because they sometimes take away personal liberties granted to everyone by the Constitution."
Christopher Washington, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"So why doesn't the United States do something to control gun usage?  Well, now state officials have.  A program was started four years ago to teach children to reach for a solution instead of a gun.  The program is called Jet Stream."
Lauren Dorgant, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The bottom line is that the Supreme Court made a mistake in overturning the act.  This act like many of our other regulations was adopted for the common good."
Emily Gremillion, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Despite the evident support of the Constitution and its jurisdiction over the right to bear arms, Congress has recently passed gun control laws for the prevention of crime and the protection of our nation's citizens.  These laws, however, are a direct encroachment on the very rights of the people as stated in the Constitution.  Such as in the case of the Gun-Free School Zone Act, which made it illegal to carry a gun within 1,000 feet of a school, Congress had taken direct responsibility in the prevention of school-related shootings.  This law was a good measure in the prevention of crime in our schools, and in the protection of both teachers and students.  However, the law would have also prohibited security guards, placed in the schools to protect the students, from carrying firearms and being able to sufficiently defend the students or faculty if the occasion should arise.  Also, the residents of the towns who lived close to the school would not have been able to carry guns in or around their own homes.  For these and other reasons, the Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional.  So far, every attempt of the government to control guns has been in direct violation of the U. S. citizens' rights and an obstruction of their freedom.  A compromise could be made to balance out the individual rights of citizens and the welfare of the public."
Beth Lacour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The Supreme Court's ruling against the Gun-Free School Zones Act was a just one.  The government cannot legislate morality and those who were there to kill would pay no attention to the gun-free school zone.  It could help the police officers to arrest those carrying guns on campus and it could help prevent further gun-related killings at school, but the overall result would have no change.  That is an issue where people must take a personal responsibility."
Chantel, Skelton, Avoyelles, High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"I do not believe that our founding fathers sought to protect the community more than individual rights.  Americans have civil rights and civil liberties.  Civil rights are used to imply that the state has a positive role in ensuring all citizens equal protection under the law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship and otherwise to participate fully in national life, regardless of race, religion, sex, or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual.  Civil liberties are used to refer to guarantees of freedom of speech, press, and religion; due process of law; and other limitations on the power of the state to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals.  Every citizen has his/her own rights and liberties that cannot be violated by others or by the state.  The Constitution gives an individual freedom which can be maintained only under a system of laws.  The civil rights and liberties of United States citizens are embodied in the Bill of Rights which are the first ten Amendments to the Constitution.  The Amendments allow citizens the freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious exercise as well as separation of the church and state.  The fourth Amendment protects citizens' privacy and security of their home, and it prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures.  The fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth Amendments protect citizens accused of crime, and guarantees them the right to trial by jury and the right to confront hostile witnesses.  All of the Amendments written by our founding fathers give rights to every American citizen and protects them as an individual and as a community.  In my opinion, our founding fathers favored the protection of the rights of individuals."
Jenna Pastor, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"We, as citizens, need to take an active role in making sure that our laws secure our well-being as individuals but also as a community.  We should exercise our right to adopt and amend laws, as it is necessary to maintain a balance between personal and community welfare.  It is our responsibility to look at our existing laws and see if they apply to our society as it stands today.  Some of the laws that are causing debate in present questionable situations are laws that were established long ago when circumstances ere different."
Emily Gremillion, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"There is currently much debate about where to draw the line between individual liberty and community welfare.  Some people believe that personal liberties must be taken away in order for the community as a whole to thrive.  Others believe that citizens should retain all of their rights and avidly fight against losing them for the welfare of the community.  I believe that citizens should be able to have the rights granted to them constitutionally as long as they have the common sense and the responsibility not to abuse those rights and privileges they possess.

   Our forefathers designed this country so that individuals would have great personal freedom.  This made sense because the founders of the United States of America were trying to escape British tyranny when they founded this nation.  In fact, they took drastic measures to prevent any possibility of dictatorship.  They granted citizens many rights and created a weak central government with no chief executive under the Articles of Confederation.  In one way this was surprising.  With the very freedom given to the citizens came great power due to the little protection offered to the nation as a whole.  So, determined to not be controlled by anyone, the founders of this country made it hard to control at all.  However, I believe they did the right thing because if they had proposed little individual freedom, the citizens would have overthrown the government because it derived its power from the consent of the governed.  A society in which citizens have few liberties could have possibly resulted in a community similar to the one described in Lois Lowry's The Giver.  In that book, the government regulated every possible aspect of human life from profession to family to emotions.  'Every curtailment of individual liberty may bring an improvement in some aspect of well-being for the community.  But at what cost?'  Are we to one day become robots controlled by the government?  Does that really result in the betterment of the community?  I think not.  While governmental power may never reach that point in reality, the book illustrated the dangers of a society in which the government has too much power over the citizens' lives.  Therefore, I think the forefathers were right in providing citizens with many personal liberties.

   While the debate rages on about how much liberty is too much, the question about who should decide liberty limitations is also causing great controversy.  Many people including Schoenbrun believe that this power belong to the police and the judicial system.  Congress seems to see the power to limit individual rights as theirs and has been proposing many acts to constrain personal freedom.  Such proposals include gambling regulations, firearm ownership restrictions, and sexual conduct restrictions.  'Underlying this all is a philosophical rejection of free will and responsibility.'  Personal responsibility is the key to balancing individual liberty and the common good, and there seems to be an increasing lack of responsibility in today's society as a whole.  Many citizens do not seem to understand that although they have the opportunity to act in a certain way, their behavior is left to their discretion.  They do not seem to realize that they do not have to push privileges to their limits.  For example, I went out last weekend and did not have a curfew.  I took it upon myself to be home at a reasonable time and was home well before midnight when I could have probably stayed out later.  Therefore, I surprised my parents by not abusing the privilege that they had granted me.  Had I come home really late, I probably would have been given a specific curfew the next time I went out.  Instead, I have the reward of being able to use my own judgement.  If my parents can trust me, a high school sophomore, to set my own curfew, I believe America should be able to trust its citizens to have the responsibility and common sense not to abuse their rights.  I believe that it is a shame that a society of civilized human beings has to rely on laws as their code of conduct instead of following Jiminey Cricket's advice and letting their consciences be their guides.  It is also my belief that it is ridiculous for the courts and police to be in charge of limiting personal rights although it seems necessary since people do not seem to be able to act responsibly on their own.

   One particular issue regarding personal rights that has aroused a great deal of controversy is the issue of gun restrictions for schools.  Congress passed the Gun-Free School Zones Act, prohibiting the presence of guns within 1,000 feet of a school.  Later this law was declared unconstitutional.  The government had based the act on its power to regulate commerce, but the Supreme Court justices proclaimed that basis unfounded, saying that the issue of guns at school was not related directly enough to commerce.  'What we want...is a compromise between a totally free market and complete government control.'  I disagree with the Supreme Court's decision and believe that the 'high court may be turning back the clock to a period in judicial history when it let the world of business and industry do just about anything it wanted.'  By forbidding this act to become national law and leaving the decision up to the state governments, the risk of widespread violence increased.  I think the Supreme Court justices made an unwise decision that was not necessarily for the good of society and 'when justices abuse their authority, we are all victims."  While I seriously doubt that gun carriage is legal at many, if any, schools, the possibility does exist.  Also, many people may assume the belief that since the Supreme Court did not outlaw guns at or near schools that such action is not bad.  This could lead to a twisted sense of propriety and an easily abused privilege.  However, I do concede that outlawing the Gun-Free School Zones Act has its benefits.  It is in keeping with the Constitutional right to bear arms and it keeps gun possession from becoming one more former right of American citizens.

   It is essential to keep individual liberty from becoming extinct.  I agree with Patrick Henry's statement, 'Give me liberty or give me death!' because to me a life without liberty is a fate worse than death.  If every citizen had enough pride, responsibility and common sense to obey the laws, personal liberties would remain instituted and society would be safe."
Annie St. Romain, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Responsibility, when loosely defined, is a state of obligation or accountability.  That is, one is obliged to act in a certain manner and account for certain actions.  However, responsibility is often a term that is used too liberally.  For instance, a teenager might deem himself responsible because, even though he consumes alcohol, he does not drive a vehicle.  It is true that it is a responsible decision not to drive an automobile after consuming alcohol, but is the word 'responsible' an appropriate description of the teenager's choice to drink?  A law is still being broken.  This individual has made an irresponsible decision, but he has not yet infringed upon the rights of another individual.  When is it, then, that irresponsibility becomes a society's problem?  The answer to this question can be found in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution.  Ratified on July 9, 1868, this amendment states the following:  'No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.'  This means that all citizens of the United States have guaranteed rights to life, freedom and property ownership which cannot be taken away without just cause.  This amendment also states that all citizens are guaranteed protection and enforcement of the laws of the United States.  Therefore, if a citizen does something that is self-satisfying, he cannot harm another citizen in the process.  There are many examples of individual acts of irresponsibility that jeopardize the liberty or well-being of another.  Some examples are displayed in a person's choice to carry a firearm around a school zone, one's decision to drive or ride in a vehicle without wearing a seatbelt, and irrational liability lawsuits.

   Many Americans believe that it is a personal right to carry a gun for their protection.  It is, in fact, an individual's right as guaranteed by the United States Constitution.  'A well=regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.'

   Each day, millions of Americans drive or ride in a vehicle, and many of these individuals choose not to utilize a simple life-saving device--the seatbelt.  In several states, it is required by law that seatbelts be worn when in a vehicle.  Still many people across the country decide against wearing them, deeming it a personal choice to put one's life in danger.  Perhaps this seems like a logical argument, but consider the following:  'Drivers without seatbelts are more likely than those wearing seatbelts to lose control of their cars in an accident and hurtle into others.  They are also more likely to die and leave their children for society to attend to and pick up the pieces.'  Now the choice becomes less of a personal one.  Reckless drivers threaten everyone else driving on the road, and even if reckless drivers only injure themselves, society ends up paying for their carelessness in the form of taxes for ambulance services and hospitals."
Amanda Singleton, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Laws force us to behave in a morally acceptable manner.  For example, if the laws were made based on social issues, shouldn't there be a law against being financially challenged?  Instead, there are programs and laws to help people with financial troubles.  Our leaders have made laws that are designed to help those in need and to punish those who have done wrong.  How is this forcing a socially acceptable behavior on our society?  These programs and laws are only helping the advancement of our society.  They are not forcing any type of idealist behavior upon the people.  Such defenses in the courts should not be acceptable.  Everyone is responsible for their own actions."
Cliff LaCour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Louisiana passed a law that said parents could be found guilty of 'improper supervision of a minor' and fined up to $1,000 and imprisoned for up to six months if their child associates with a convicted felon, drug dealer or members of a street gang.  I believe this is absolutely insane.  Parents only have so much authority and if the child is not willing to listen, he/she will do about anything to commit an illegal or unethical act."
Kelsey Ann Lemoine, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Some factors are not any of the police or court's business.  Take for example, 'One pregnant girl was sentenced to 30 days for a misdemeanor.'  The prosecutor in this case stated that the community should be shocked at the prospect of a child being born to a teen mother out of wedlock.  He also stated that there was a high percentage that the child would end up in prison, on welfare, illiterate and on drugs.  This clearly outrages me!  If the girl has a child, it is her choice.  The government should have no say in what a female chooses to do with her own body, especially if she is financially able to care for the child herself.  The prosecutor is clearly stereotyping children born to teen mothers out of wedlock.  I think that this ruling clearly violated the individual rights of this young girl."
Michelle Gaspard, Avoyelles, High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Community welfare should be considered a personal obligation out of fairness to every citizen in the nation.  The balance between community and individuals is not only the responsibility of the police or courts, but the individuals who make up one united community.  The foundation of this great nation is liberty--one common liberty based on the individual responsibility of the citizens of the United States of America."
Amanda Singleton, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Being  responsible individual does not necessarily have any effect on one's community, thus making the individual insignificant to the common good."
Gabriel Gillory, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The welfare of the community depends on individuals and their willingness to obey the laws of the country.  If any American citizen violates a right or law, I believe the courts and police then have the right to take action and become involved, but not until that right has been clearly violated."
Jenna Pastor, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Responsibility is defined as 'the quality or condition of being reliable; trustworthiness.'  Responsibility plays a key part in our everyday lives.  Our personal liberties are based on our ability to be responsible.  If we are unable to be responsible, then our liberties have to be limited to protect others around us.  The common good comes before all personal liberties.  The common good includes the welfare of millions of people and should be thought of more highly than the good of a singular person.  We should realize this and decide court cases based on the good of the people, not on the interest of a singular person or organization."
Cliff LaCour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Personal responsibility is based on what we believe and how we decide to act upon those beliefs.  The responsibility of every good citizen is to be willing to give up some personal liberty if needed for the common good.  There is also a fine line that divides what is better for the common good while not being an infringement of individual rights."
Emily Gremillion, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Having an active role in one's community better establishes him with the common good.  At time it may seem that no one is profiting from one's contributions to the community; however, as long as an individual does not go out of his way to degrade the common good, the community stays balanced.  One has to have contributions to his or her community in order to benefit themselves.  The common good should be the main priority of an individual.  Individuals are able and are given the rights to keep balance and order in a community."
Gabriel Gillory, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"I think that the welfare of the community as a whole comes before the liberty of any one person.  The good of millions of people will always supersede the good of a single person.  An example of this is if a criminal is convicted of murder.  His personal liberties would allow him to go free, but the good of the community requires him to be held in prison so that he does not harm any other person in the society.  This betters the community as a whole because it prevents further violence among the people of the community.  This action may hurt this one person, but at the same time it benefits thousands - possibly millions - of people.  If this person and others who have come before would have taken responsibility for themselves and somehow punished themselves, there would be no use for the court systems.  However, because of the irresponsibility of many of those in our society, the government had to step in and establish guidelines for where the good of the community supersedes the liberties of one person."
Cliff LaCour, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"The Bill of Rights was not written to protect the people from others or themselves, but to protect individual liberties from the government.  The closest thing to protection from other people is that one could not interfere with another's personal rights.  This idea made illegal the acts which caused the government to regulate many of the personal rights and liberties possessed by the people which it governs.  For example, if a person goes into a store, pulls a handgun or rifle, why should the government make guns illegal?  If a person has been drinking and gets in a wreck, should the government make alcohol illegal?  The only way to take care of this problem is to punish the drunk driver more strictly and make an example instead of making alcohol illegal to possess or consume.  It is unconstitutional to punish someone for something they did not do.  The founding fathers did not want the government to get involved in personal affairs of the people, but now the judicial system represents the people in enforcing the law in the public interest. 

   The citizens should be able to balance the individual rights and the welfare of the community on their own.  If people respect each other's individual rights then the welfare of the community will be fine.  It is sometimes bad to leave the balance to the police and the courts.  The courts are made up of politicians who cannot always be trusted.

   Lately, the United States government has raised taxes on tobacco products.  Again, the government is trying to protect the people from themselves.  All the government has accomplished by doing this is to make many hard working people with an addiction to nicotine in cigarettes, cigars, etc. pay more for the items.  Yes, tobacco is hazardous to one's health, but you can only lead the horse to water; you can't make it drink.  The government is basically sticking our heads into the water, and then getting angry when we bite back to keep from drowning.  The government is doing the same thing with alcohol by constantly raising the drinking age.  If you are eighteen years old, you can be sent off to war to die and tried as an adult for any crimes committed, but you can't buy or consume alcohol.  It seems that the government has been trying to completely control the governed by constant regulations.  If the people do not stand up for their individual rights, the great democratic society we have will become a multi-leader monarchy."
Jeremy Beckham, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Smoking is just as hazardous to your health as chemicals released from nuclear plants.  Everyone has the right to smoke but the minute your smoke harms someone else it's no longer a right and the law has the power to regulate it.  The power of balancing individual rights and the welfare of the community should ultimately be left up to the police and courts.  We are allowing people to invade others' rights by crying out for their own.  For example, Roy Platt of Los Angeles sued his neighbor because the secondhand cigarette smoke was coming through his window, yet his neighbor cried out that he had the right to smoke.  Just as his neighbor had the right to smoke; he had the right not to smoke.  This is just one of a number of reasons how the people who are really in the wrong are crying out for rights that they should no longer be privileged to have because they have stepped over someone else's rights to acquire them.  If we are to stop this the government must take a firm stand on the belief that your rights stop where the next person's begin."
Christopher Washington, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Our country's current leaders are putting their best foot forward to help prevent future crime rates from rising and, therefore, are presently putting greater emphasis on the protection over individual liberty than was put on the community by our founding fathers."
Lauren Dorgant, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana  

"The founding fathers might have put a greater emphasis on the community as a whole, rather than individual liberty because in the present day, most people could care less about the common good.  Everyone is more concerned about what benefits them.  The country, in the beginning, was more centered on the development of the nation as a whole, rather than a person's individual rights.  African Americans, women and poor white males were denied the right to vote because the government was worried about the nation and not every individual.  Even so, the individual rights of a person should be carried out by that person, in turn, caring for the community.  Only that person can decide what is right for him or herself.  If a person is incapable mentally or physically to decide for themselves, their family should be the next in line to make the decisions for them.  The courts are not always correct and do not know what is in a person's best interests at all times.  Neither do the police.  The police and courts, however, should have the right to care for the community as a whole.  For instance, not all people are morally correct or stable.  They may threaten the community as a whole or just a few people.  At this point only should the courts and police be able to step in, especially if it will affect the public welfare."
Justin Lemoine, Avoyelles, High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"I don't believe that the founding fathers put a greater emphasis on the protection of the community over individual liberty, and I do not agree that the balancing of individual rights and the welfare of the community should be left to the police and courts.  The liberties of individuals are often violated because the government and its officials are trying to protect the community.  They gave us, the citizens, the freedom of many things like 'speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.'  But our founding fathers still gave some attention to the well-being of the community.  I believe that both issues are very well balanced throughout the Constitution, especially for not knowing what lay ahead for the nation.

   I strongly disagree that the balancing of individual rights and the welfare of the community should be left to the police and courts.  Certain rights of the U.S. citizens have been clearly given to us by our founding fathers.  I believe that those rights, if not abused, should not have any relation whatsoever to the courts or the police.  The welfare of the community should be considered by the citizens.  After all, the citizens are the people who are directly affected by the changes and decisions."
Michelle Gaspard, Avoyelles, High School, Moreauville, Louisiana

"Different views are important to our civilization.  If everyone had the same view on everything, then this would be a boring world to live in.  The diversity of our community and the fact that we are free to express our opinions freely helps to keep our society booming.  If everyone would keep an open mind about new things, then things that are just and helpful would enter our society easier.  People should not be labeled because of what they believe or because of what they do, as long as it is legal.  I believe that if some of the things that come into our society would really be looked over for the good they can do and the possible problems they can cause, then the steps that we take would be a lot more solid."
Paula Fontenot, Avoyelles High School, Moreauville, Louisiana