Political Science

Most of the survey questions proved easy to comprehend by many respondents. This is drawn from the fact that most of the respondents were able to read and offer their feedbacks without the need to have explanations or clarifications done for them. In spite of this, most respondents sought for prior explanations as to the legitimacy of the survey and sought clarifications why only such questions that touched on security were administered and not other questions touching on health, development and other issues of national interest. Hence, most respondents were anxious to know why the legislature had decided to hear from the public through such survey questions.

The specific questions that I offered clarifications on were those that touched on constitution. Most respondents felt that they had no enough knowledge regarding what the constitution states regarding the protection of the rights of individuals as well as the restriction of the governments authority. In this regard, most respondents sought to know what the constitution holds regarding the two issues before they offered their own opinions. In the same connection, most respondents sought clarification on examples of intrusive privacy measures that can help the government provide protection without interfering on the privacy of individuals.

 Numerous confusions arose during the survey regarding the validity of the questions as compared to what is stated in the constitution. For example, the first three questions emulated clearly what the constitution states while the three last questions were quite the opposite. With such a level of confusion, most respondents took a longer time to determine whether they could stand with the constitution or get out of the constitution for the sake of the countrys security. A part from that overall confusion, there was no confusion regarding specific questions. The sample was randomly selected and it included 10 respondents.

The sample was representative because it encompassed members of the public from different sexes, races, age and professions.  Specifically, there were 5 females and 5 male respondents. Among the female respondents were 2 whites aged 23 and 49, 1 African American aged 35 and 2 Muslim-Americans aged 18 and 60. Among the male respondents were 3 African-American aged 52, 34 and 78, 1 white aged 27 and 1 Asian American aged 33. In terms of profession, some respondents were doctors, teachers, farmers, clerics and students.

The general results of the poll indicated that a majority of Americans value their security than just written laws which hinder proper administration of security measures. In this perspective, 95 of the respondents held that laws are set to safeguard the lives of people for which such laws apply. Hence, this group of respondents indicated that the government should do everything in its power to safeguard the lives of its people even if it means overhauling the entire constitution to suit the current trend of events. Only 5 of the respondents held that the constitution is the supreme law of the land and should be followed to the later.

From the above results, it is quite evident that most respondents endorsed the governments violation of the constitution for the sake of the security of its people. Hence, reading from the mood of the public through the just concluded survey, the politicians should either amend the constitution to encompass clauses which allow the government to violate the constitution but only when such violation is beneficial to the security of the public.