Protections for civil liberties are almost never absolute. The government has always been willing to weaken protections for civil liberties when other, important considerations demand it. For instance, concerns about national security threats from terrorism balance against civil liberties in the Patriot Act. What are some of the other considerations or, as the law puts it, "compelling interests" that policy makers (including courts) have balanced against the various civil liberties in the Constitution? Discuss some specific examples. Do you think these attempts at balance have been reasonable? Why or why not?