The 14th Amendment right to equal protection as recognized under Baker v Carr designed on the surface to ensure fair participation in the democratic process, however, it is more so a check on the majority. As Baker v Carr introduces, the 14th Amendment does not cover all types of discrimination. For example, discrimination by the means of improper districting of a state, intentional or not, is not covered by the Constitution. However, what the 14th Amendment does do effectively is put a check on the majority will through rights. The majority rules and the only way to prevent this is through rights, which dictate what people are and are not allowed to do.
Then standard 2 goes on, stating, "Understand the central ideas of American constitutional government and how this form of government has shaped the character of American Society". In the U.S Constitution, the first amendment first says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Then come the words that allow us free speech and free press, as well as the rights to assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances. This shapes characters of American society by teaching us that we have no right to discriminate against another person because we don 't share they same religious belief; or even political beliefs, going back to the overall concept of standard 2. Lastly, Standard 2 explains, "Understand the role of government in major areas of domestic and foreign policy.
He says that justice involves the idea of equality. He goes on to argue that the use of justice can’t be described in terms of the idea that justice and generality, as a legal ideal, might share. Laws should be very clear and it should be specified as to which norms have the status of law. Hart discusses this and takes the stand that they should not be the end-all of legal morality. Thus, as far as primary rules are concerned, Hart argues that there is a need for certainty, so that these rules can be applied by general public without any official guidance.
Civil liberties are freedoms stated in the Bill of rights that protect the people from unreasonable government interference while Civil rights guarantees protection by the government to protect an individual from another. When the Bills of Rights was made it was not created as a list of guaranteed rights for citizens but simply made to state what things the government was not allowed to interfere with (Steve Mount).Although some may say that the U.S constitution did not need to include a specific listing of civil rights and liberties because it was unnecessary, I would have to disagree. The Bill of Rights is in my opinion not specific enough to protect the rights of the people the way it should. It simply just states what cannot be interfered
Is National Security better than Personal Privacy? People fear their loss of privacy, but the government is trying to protect us. The 4th Amendment states that citizens have the right to protect their privacy and should not be violated without a warrant. The Patriot Act was passed to protect citizens from terrorism. However, privacy is always a good thing to have but when it comes to protecting our country national security is the best way to go.
This is where the State does not allow any form of harm. For example, in cases of statutory rape or assisted suicide, whether or not the accused gave consent is irrelevant. The last approach is where consent is sometimes recognised as a ground of justification, whether consent would be recognised depends on the seriousness and purpose of the bodily injury as well as the legal convictions of the community. 4 False pretences and fraudulent means to obtain
In case of both partial and complete integrations, the extrinsic evidence opposing the writing is eliminated, as per the parol evidence rule. Though, in case of partial integration, the supplementing terms to the writing are taken as admissible. The parol evidence rule is very strong; therefore, while construing a contract, the extrinsic evidence is avoided from being taken into consideration. This provision is known to be as the Four Corners Rule. There are two fundamental rules in this Four Corner Rule: • First, if the intention of the parties indicates a complete integrated agreement, the court will never consider any parol evidence, and •
In hard cases, judges are not legislating, as Hart’s positivists assert, they are inducing based on principle. Judges have a duty not only to apply the rules, but also to make sure that the legal system is consistent with the principles of the society. When judges are said to legislate, they are not making the rules but discovering them.  According to Dworkin understanding the role of the courts is to defend the rights of citizens from the likelihood of unfair rules or other circumstances in which the written laws do not satisfactorily defend their natural rights.
But, as is the case with the dormant foreign affairs power, the states are not permitted to act simply because, on a particular issue of foreign commerce, Congress has remained silent. A state statute must not discriminate against foreign commerce, and it must not impede the federal government’s ability to speak with one voice in foreign
Any additions to the powers listed are unconstitutional and potentially dangerous. The constitution in of itself establishes a government with limited powers. Such interpretation ensures that judges and lawmakers will not become tyrannical
If the government tried to put the interests of citizens before their own, and not allow the citizens to get punish for what rights are obligated for them then they will see by putting the people first will benefit America as a whole. In my opinion I feel that the constitution is a petty factor for determining the democracy of a government and the rights of the people in that
U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995). Facts: The people of Arkansas voted to add term limits to the Houses of Congress. Preventing candidates’ names from appearing on the ballot if they had served: 2 terms in the Senate and 3 terms for Representatives. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that the law was unconstitutional. It was appealed to the United States Supreme Court and affirmed the decision.
In the year of 1865, the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress. This Amendment formally abolished slavery within the United states. This ratification was the final consent to considering the Three-Fifths compromise obsolete; A compromise that was relevant for many years reforming the idea of how the slave count should be considered into the population of the United States. Not only did this Amendment shatter the idea of giving slave three-fifths of a count toward the population, this was the first formal movement towards giving slaves an identity.