Question

Please help asap! I will give a person the brainliest crown! Inappropriate comment will get report.

Answer 1

Answer:

Yes, but only to a certain extent.

The government must be able to balance individual rights with the rights of the national interest. This may entirely depend on the level of security that the government would need. For example, other than fire balloons that were sent into the mainland of the US from Japan, there was little to no need for security for foreign invasions to the United States during World War II. This makes it so that in the probable cause of Japanese-descent residents to join the Axis Power is bar none, with no secure way to communicate. However, that does not mean that they would not be able to communicate information as a whole, but that it is typically only a one-way street, in which the Japanese government cannot fully help any dissenters within the United States. National Security is the only justifiable reason to enact limits on rights, and even then, it is frowned upon. Any other limitations, such as lockdowns for diseases, for example, are not justifiable in limiting a person's rights to their life choices, their liberties, and even equality of opportunities for each person depending on their job preferences.

At the end of the day, the government is to serve the people, not the other way around. The days of Feudalism and the security of Royalty is already over, and governments who fail to provide security, prosperity, and equality would either be overthrown by the people, or else by foreign interests.

Answer 2

Answer:

Yes they can If the government has a compelling interest it is seeking to protect, and the fundamental right the government seeks to restrict is fairly and narrowly regulated by the law in question, the restrictive law may be upheld by the courts.

Explanation: