Because in a true democracy, it is the responsibility of the citizens to disobey the laws that aren’t truly aiding in the progressive nature of society. A democracy can’t be effective without active participation. With that, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is a cornerstone in how we should approach the discussion of whether it is or isn’t reasonable to disobey a law. King agrees with St. Augustine in that “an unjust law is no law at all.” This enforces the idea that an unjust law is virtually not present because it is inevitably meant to be broken.
(Anti-Federalist 1: Brutus). Even though the Constitution called for checks and balances, Anti-Federalist Patrick Henry, was convinced that the president would be the one making all the decisions, not unlike a king. (Bianco and Canon, 44). The national supremacy clause in the Constitution even stated that national law supersedes any state law when there is conflict. But what they were most scared of was.
The first Amendment declares, “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” However, after the Espionage Act was passed, during World War 1, Schenck was arrested for violating this Act by printing 50,000 leaflets that contradicted the war and the draft. As illustrated, U.S. citizens should be granted the ability to protest wars and drafts since it violates the first Amendment’s right to free speech. The Supreme Court made an invalid choice.
The papers that they would write detailed how the Constitution would provide “a remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government” and to “secure the public good and private rights” (Fed #10) arguing over concepts that they felt were key to providing this security. One of their main objections against the Articles of Confederation was that the “Separation of Powers” maintained in the Articles was not an effective way to protect the public against potential abuses. The Federalist argues that each department should have a will of its own and have as little as possible to do with the appointment of members of the other branches; that each department should have enough power to carry out its mission an them limit its power so that it cannot become to tyrannical. The Federalist, argues that payments attached to the offices of each branch should be as independent as possible and that a system of checks and balances were necessary to thwart encroachments by other
The clash of the two ideas of the Federalists views of the constitution were highly against the views that the Democratic-Republicans. Thomas Jefferson believed in a strict construction of the Constitution. He believed people should follow exactly what was stated and allowed in the document. On the other hand, Alexander Hamilton believed in a loose construction of the Constitution, and also the national bank. Members of the Democratic-Republican party generally believed that a strong federal government would weaken the rights of the states and the people and insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution.
Although, Thoreau does not like the way government rule however his not an anti-government. He believes the government is necessary for ruling the country, but the corrupt government is not beneficial at all because it is only benefiting people who are involved in the politics. He believes government power should come from the people and citizens should receive all the advantage than political leaders. Therefore, Thoreau thinks the current government is flawed; thus, we must create new form political system. When he mentions this statement his intentions become more clear “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.
The argument for compulsory voting is basically undemocratic because the first amendment talks about how you have freedom. The freedom of choice must include the freedom not to choose. Democracy deeply values individual freedom which means if compulsory voting was mandatory, It is a clear violation of liberty and the first amendment. I argue that voting should not be mandatory in America because first, non-voters are uninformed, it doesn’t improve the democratic climate, and it requires a national database. American is one of the most powerful and big countries in the world.
In spite of the fact that a privilege to marry is not listed in the Constitution, the Court said that such a privilege is covered under the Fourteenth Amendment in light of the fact that such choices are vital to our survival and our values. Accordingly, they should essentially reside with the individual instead of with the state. This choice is a conflict with the popular argument that something cannot be an actual constitutional right unless it is spelled out straightforwardly in the U.S. Constitution. It additionally stands out amongst the most imperative models on the general thought of common uniformity, clarifying that essential social equality is basic to our reality and cannot really be restricted on the grounds that a few people trust that their god can 't help
Apportioning states to adopt, preside new rules under their own Constitution is a frustrating, tiresome and a waste of taxpayer 's money. Not to discredit the ancestors, attributes and reasons for establishing state Constitutions, but moving to present day there is now a process called the Constitutional Amendments. Nevertheless, in a legal sense, all state constitutions are inferior to the United States Constitution and the final say on this controversial issue; ultimately, it will fall to the federal government.
“A common law Constitution is a "living" Constitution, but it is also one that can protect fundamental principles against transient public opinion, and it is not one that judges (or anyone else) can simply manipulate to fit their own ideas”( Strauss, David A). With today’s society and the way things are its hard to say whether or not this document is living or not. I still believe the Constitution is a non-living document. In another article I read, Scalia states that “that issues such as abortion and homosexuality do not appear in the Constitution makes them matters for which citizens and states can enact laws”( Patel, Ushma). Basically what he’s saying is that issues that are not supported in the Constitution make it not a living document.
Government will always change. Tom Gallagher declared, “For most of the past twenty years there has been a trend toward smaller government, but now it appears that the trend has reversed. Such trends and their reversals appear to have more to do with society's perceived needs than with electoral politics.” Gallagher is a member of the republican party and is a politician from the state of Florida. People tend to want the opposite of what they get.
I am studying the tenth amendment and my interpretation of this amendment is that it is stating what rights the state's/government has over the people. The tenth amendment was incorporated into the constitution because the states and their citizens feared that the federal government would leave them with no power. The Tenth Amendment was added to the United States Constitution on December 15, 1791. This amendment was proposed by congress in 1989. The tenth amendment didn’t exactly confirm the amount of power given to the government and the state's’/citizens.
Since the beginning of its creation America has been known as being the land of the free. The Anti-Federalist movement was the only way America would have kept its founding principles, and prevent the monarchy like Federalist movement from occurring, thus saving Americans freedom. Those that would be representatives in government of the United States would be composed of the rich. The rich only have their own best interests in mind and thus, silence those they are meant to be representing.
The Federalist agreed with the Constitution and its provisions. The wanted to create a strong federal government that will combine both the federal and the states as one nation. One of the weakness that the Articles of Confederation address is that the state had rights to levy taxes and regulate commerce. The states where in charge of the money coming in. The government concern was that if the states did not provide funds for the military they could not do anything about it.