Balance Of Power In New Spain Essay

Since the spoken word, hundreds of philosophers have defined law in different ways. Philosophy allows people to study the nature of people’s beliefs which can differ over time. Not even the law is exempt from the opinions of philosophers. Seeing law in different ways allows people to come to different conclusions about legal cases. The Fugitive Slave Law was a controversial law in American history, which allowed slave-owners to capture their slaves who have fled north to free states. Once, a group of emancipators in Boston was tried for helping an escaped slave flee to Canada. These emancipators challenged the Fugitive Slave Law in United States v Morris. According to the Fugitive Slave Law, helping an escaped slave is in violation of

In this week’s reading, “Spanish Conquest” by Elizabeth Carmichael and Chloe Sayer discuss the subjugation, ethnocide, and struggle the indigenous population of Mexico endured during the Spanish conquest. The Spanish conquistador, Hernan Cortez, enslave and forced the Aztecs to believe that Christianity was the one true religion. Therefore, the indigenous people were forced to convert their faith through the Spanish missionaries to lose their indigenous roots. Later, the authors explain the many difficulties and conflicts Spanish priest underwent to teach the Christian faith to the Aztecs. The Spanish friar first taught the indigenous people Christianity in Nahuatl. However, there was a debate if teaching the Aztecs in Nahuatl hindered

Sophocles’ play Antigone, and Martin Luther king Jr’s Letter from Birmingham Jail analyze the underlying truth concerning their moral situations tied in with the legal systems of their times. Antigone was faced with whether to follow her heart and go against her very own uncle, while King himself did not face any personal dilemmas but was providing the intended audience a choice, either to side with his methods or fall in to the power of their faulty legal system. In this paper, I will argue how both pieces face different moral and legal dilemmas in their own unique way which ultimately questions the jurisdictions set forth by those in power.

The Declaration of Independence, penned and published on July 4th 1776, is perhaps the most famous document in the short history of human rights. Written largely by Thomas Jefferson, it is the first succinct, unashamedly loud declaration of the equal rights of man. The Declaration took the philosophy of men like Hobbes and Locke and put it into practice, deciding that the “self-evident” rights of man could no longer be abused by tyrannical government. The Declaration affirms that the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” were written “Laws of Nature” that every man should be afforded equally and without limitations. It also declares that the oppression of rights is wrong and tyrannical. The rule of George III over the United

Dallet hemphill focuses her study, “Women in Courts: Sex-Role Differentiation in Salem, Massachusetts, 1636 to 1683” on reconstructing the social life of women in the first five decades following colonization. Hemphill approaches the article from a legal standpoint, choosing to emphasize primarily on women’s rights within the laws of society by examining Essex county court records and depositions. In doing so, she differentiates between the experiences of women pre and post 1670s. According to Hemphill, prior to the late 1670s the daily experiences of men and women were difficult to separate. Women likely assisted in farming and trade activities, contributed to familial economic decisions, and owned and sold property freely. (Hemphill,

The main philosophy of John Locke, a famous and well-known Enlightenment philosopher, involves his theory of natural law and natural rights given to mankind. In this particular article, entitled “The Consent of the Governed”, part of his work Two Treatises of Government, Locke addresses importance of man’s natural state and its main characteristics, the forming of a government and what it offers and the relationship between a government and its subjects.

Calavita’s sociological approach works to further interpret Rothstein’s concepts for how social understanding becomes law or close to it. The author’s first concept, how the law is both everyday and everywhere, enforces the spectrum of influence that the law has on the workings of society. Calavita explains, “It is this everyday nature of law-its ability to influence our most mundane activities and even to determine what those activities are-that makes it such a powerful resource for those who would shape the socioeconomic order to their advantage” (Calavita, 42). Additionally, similar to Rothstein’s argument, Calavita articulates “the color of law” as historical changes in the definition of what it meant to be a citizen in the United States were based on the color of your

“When the people fear their government there is tyranny:When the government fears the people there is liberty”. This quote by Thomas Jefferson best describes the vision our Founding Fathers had for our country. This way of thinking led them to write the Declaration of Independence in protest of King George III tyrannical government. Our Forefathers borrowed from the teaching of an ancient Greek philosopher named Plato and his student Aristotle. They believed that a tyrannical form of government was the least likely to prevail because one person that has all of the power is more susceptible to making mistakes and abusing power. As King George did. He ruled a cruel oppressive government that enraged the people and led to the revolutionary

The popular perception of the American dream is that it is the perfect formula to achieve whatever you desire through unmatched opportunities. However, in reality the core of the dream holds many hidden flaws that ultimately discredit its validity. Throughout American History, examples of the privileged citizens see more respect to every life task that occurs. As for the rest of the population, the minorities who have been stepped over, suffer bias opinions that affect success barriers they attempt to cross. There is a sense of hypocrisy within the American dream discussion because the minorities that supposedly make this country diverse, fall under the crumbles of the privileged. Author Dulce Pinzon shares her analysis of liberty and its limitations

Under the power and jurisdiction of their masters, slaves lost their humanity and became extensions of their masters (Rauch, Sherman, & Hagel). Consequently, slaves wished to escape their cycle of subordination as presented in many non-fictional slave texts, such as in Mariano Pereira’s interview after slavery or in the Ilheus, Bahia slave treaty in 1789 (Krueger). Given that the slave could not challenge the institution with enough power to eliminate it, slaves must have sought other means to oppose the institution and gain some autonomy. Hence, primary sources become excellent texts to extract and define the form of resistances slaves utilized to oppose their masters. In Plautus’s play, Pseudolus, and Machado de Assis’s short story, The Cane, slaves used the manipulation of language, the master’s power in persuasion, and the reliance on others to wager on gaining autonomy.

In this essay, the famous political theorist Isaiah Berlin tries to differentiate between the notions of positive liberty and negative liberty. Berlin briefly discusses the meaning of the word ‘freedom’. He says that a person is said to free when no man or body of men interferes with his activity. He makes reference to many philosophers in the essay, but there is more emphasis on the thoughts of J. S. Mill and Rousseau, the former being a firm advocate of negative liberty while the latter believes strongly in the ideals of positive liberty.

While freedom as a concept feels fairly intuitive, nuances in interpretation can change the basis of an argument. John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government and Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America do not define liberty in precisely the same way, which in turn guides two different visions in how a government should function.

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau have become known as three of the most prominent political theorists in the world today. Their philosophies and innovative thinking is known worldwide and it has influenced the creation of numerous new governments. All three thinkers agree on the idea of a social contract but their opinions differ on how the social contract is established and implemented within each society. These philosophers state, that in order for the social contract to be successful people need to give up certain freedoms in order to secure fundamental protections from the state, henceforth the state then has certain responsibilities to their citizens. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all believe that before men were governed we all lived in a state of nature. This state of nature was the conditions in which we lived before there were any political governments to rule over us and it described what societies would be like if we had no government at all. In this essay I will compare the opinions given by each philosopher regarding their understanding of the state and the law. I will also discuss how their theories have influenced our understanding of the law today.

The precedent is a decided legal case, which is used as a basis for deciding later similar cases. The English Law system is a legal system where the precedent has a great weight. This law system can be subdivided into two main interrelated branches: statute (or statutory) law and common law. Statute is an Act of Parliament, which starts its life as a bill, goes through the parliament, receives royal assent and becomes law. [5] Common law works in a different way, the judges rather than the Parliament make common law or ‘judge-made law’. Considering criminal and civil cases, the judges take decisions based on the stare decisis principle (Latin “to stand by things decided”, the legal principle of determining points in litigation according to precedent [4]), deliver rulings and create precedents, thus applying the law to real life situations. Therefore, the value of the precedent is very high in the English Common Law system.

No doubt the doctrine of the judicial precedent has proved to be a real advantage to society. However, we cannot neglect the fact that there are some disadvantages associated with this doctrine.