Site Menu

Lycoming County Law Day Celebrations

Law Day 2006 Art & Essay Contest Winning Entries

Posted on May 3rd, 2006 at 9:00 PM

I feel that teachers should not be permitted to spank children because it would embarrass them and they would not want to come to school knowing they could be spanked. They would be taught that hitting would solve problems because their teacher did it. It could hurt the children if the teacher was really strong. Then the nurse's office would be really crowded because they are hurt and the more time the children are in the nurse's office the less learning time they would have. The children would not feel very active at recess because they got spanked in class. That is why teachers should not be able to spank children.

Daniel Smith Cochran Elementary School

I think teachers and principals should be permitted to spank bad students. For one reason, I get spanked and after I get spanked I do not do it again. Also, there is a saying I believe in: No Pain, No Gain. If you don’t spank children and give them a little pain they are not going to gain the knowledge to know not to do bad things. Also, some kids think that detention and suspension are cool, but they are embarrassed at being spanked. Additionally, I don’t think it is fair that most of our parents got spanked but we did not. I think kids should get spanked by their teachers or principals, maybe even the school superintendent.

Jacob Bair McCall Middle School

The Abuse of Power

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither,” a paraphrase of a quote attributed to Benjamin Franklin, seems especially appropriate today. Imagine living in a country where government leaders could at any time sidestep laws in the name of national security. It isn’t a desirable prospect, and it shouldn’t occur in America.

When the American government was originally designed, it was intended to be a government for the people and by the people. Amendments were added to the Constitution in order to protect the people. One such amendment is the Fourth Amendment, which has recently been violated by George W. Bush. I disagree with Bush authorizing the NSA to wiretap without the proper warrants. There is something wrong when a government leader can obviously disobey a law, in this case FISA, and keep the crime from the public for more than four years.

It would have been easy for the NSA to perform exactly the same wiretaps completely with the confines of the law. According to FISA, only five of the nearly 19,000 requests for warrants have been denied since FISA was passed in 1979. The required warrants for wiretaps would have been approved. The issue is not so much that the wiretaps are occurring; the issue is that it is so easy for our president and a few members of Congress to ignore a law just because obeying the law would have been inconvenient for them.

Wiretapping may be a valuable tool in protecting American citizens from terrorists, but even in protecting its citizens, a government is not above the law. George W. Bush and a small section of Congress should never have been able to approve a program that sidestepped FISA. The wiretapping in question should continue only with the appropriate warrants.

Rachel Kempf Williamsport High School

In the modern fight against terrorism, the President should be permitted to order the wiretap or interception of telephone and e-mail messages from American citizens without being issued a search warrant. When fighting an enemy as serious and dangerous as suicidal terrorists, no method of defense or precaution should be over looked. The United States and its allies should use any and all forces necessary to win the fight for a better cause.

Although given the right to privacy by the first amendment, no one citizen’s rights should outweigh the rights of multiple citizens. Consider this: before the attacks of 9/11, if the president had the ability to intercept phone and e-mails from American citizens that may have aided in coordinating the attacks, there is a chance the attacks could have been prevented. Saving the permanent loss of thousands of lives by temporarily sacrificing the rights of one or even hundreds of American citizens is worth the risk. I would much rather have my privacy violated than have my whole family killed in a terrorist attack.

In conclusion, when combating terrorism, the United States President should be able to intercept phone and e-mail messages. However, this should only be done when there is a considerable amount of suspicion, so that the rights of innocent citizens are not often violated. It is my firm belief that the U.S. and its’ allies should take any and all strategic moves to end the war as quickly and as peacefully as possible. Civilians need not lose their lives and terrorist attacks must be stopped; allowing the President to intercept phone and e-mail messages will possibly greatly decrease the number of unnecessary loss of life and terrorist attacks.

Levi Schappell Williamsport High School

0 Be Careful Little Mouths What You Say

Perhaps a bombing or maybe a second catastrophe like 9/11 is in the midst of being planned right this second. Would you want our government listening in on these conversations even though they did not first obtain a warrant from a judge? In the interest of combating terrorism, President Bush has ordered that all wiretaps of American citizens be allowed without a search warrant. Does the President have the right to invade people’s privacy like this? I believe that the President of our country has the right to make any decisions concerning the safety, protection, and benefits of our country.

The President should be permitted to order a wiretap without a warrant from a judge because it is his job to help ensure the safety of the United States. When people think of the United States of America, security, and safeness are some of the things that come to mind. The President ordered this wiretap to ensure safety from terrorism. Someday we as citizens may be thankful for this strong order from President Bush.

Also, our President has the right to order a wiretap without a warrant from a judge because it aids in the protection of our country. If a terrorist attack is being plotted against the U.S. over the telephone right now, our government can protect our county by stopping the attack before it even happens. Also, if any threatening remarks are made, government officials can take care of that before any damage is done. Protecting our country is something that everyone should keep fresh on his or her mind.

Lastly, our President has the right to order a wiretap without a warrant from a judge because it benefits our country in more ways than one. Perhaps the biggest benefit is safety and protection from terrorism, but wiretapping can also help catch criminals within the borders of the U.S. The police catch many criminals because of intercepted telephone conversations. Wiretaps can help keep criminals off the streets and terrorists from attacking our nation.

In conclusion, President Bush has ordered wiretaps of telephone messages without first obtaining a warrant from a judge in the interest of fighting against terrorism. Safety, protection, and benefits are all positives that are results of his decision. Thinking back to the smoke filled towers collapsing to the ground, one can only hope that this wiretapping will prevent 9/11 from happening all over again. Does America need to go through a second 9/11 before people finally realize that our country is in danger from terrorism?

Aaron Brooks Walnut Street Christian School

Arianna Figured art