This could serious endanger the democratic nation as the President would become one similar to that of King George III whom the founding fathers sought to avoid when they draft the Constitution. However, this court case also proved that privileges granted to a certain person or groups are not absolute. The executive privilege granted to the President is not absolute and neither are any of the rights guaranteed in the constitution. No rights are absolute and thus, this court case had a negative impact on the society of the United States. Generally speaking, the court case, Nixon vs. United States
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act allows U.S. intelligence agencies to acquire foreign intelligence information by monitoring foreign persons in the USA and abroad. This act ensures that intelligence agencies can respond in time to terminate a security threat. The most important part of this act, the Section 702 forbids deliberate monitoring of US citizens and their communication. Technically NSA has been violating this act ever since it has been enacted in 2008 because, as we know, they have been monitoring all US citizenry.
There had been some efforts to hide facts of Watergate tapping: documents were destroyed, staffs were under pressure to stay away from press, staffs were persuaded to give certain answers to FBI, and staffs possessed critical information were promoted after Watergate. President Richard Nixon assured the public that the White House had no involvement with this particular incident. His use of the words “particular incident” led the reporters to look further into their investigation. Woodward and Bernstein uncovered indecent campaign strategies to undercut the Democratic Party by using unlawful methods such as threats, phone tapping and spying. Woodward and Bernstein, however, could not prove it because their sources refused to speak
Both 1984 and Anthem have very oppressive governments, but their laws are completely different from one another. In 1984, the government is strange when it comes to rules, there is nothing that is illegal, the people are allowed to do whatever they want, but if they do anything or even look slightly suspicious, the “Thought Police” will kidnap, torture, and kill anybody who has gone against the government. The government believes that if people are allowed to have emotions, they will become angry at the government, and revolt, and that’s why emotions are illegal (I will call it illegal because even though there are no laws, doing certain things will get you in trouble, so to avoid confusion, I’m going to continue saying it’s “illegal”), including emotional attachments to other people. People having sex for the purposes of procreation is perfectly legal, but having sex because you love the
The main purpose of the act was to have the president and congress approach war efforts with “collective judgement,” yet the act itself seems to allow the president to bypass congress just as how presidents Harry Truman, Lyndon Johnson, and Richard Nixon did in the Korean and Vietnam Wars. The act was supposed to correct the errors of such wars, but it really does not address the issue of powers between the executive and legislative branches effectively. In essence the president can declare war in the emergency when the United States is under attack, such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks in New York and the Pentagon however, he is restricted from actually enacting war, meaning he can only say that there will be war, but he cannot start organizing and sending troops to hostile countries without the formal consent of congress. Therefore, the war powers act attempts to decrease the president’s power to enact war, but it violates the constitution and bypasses congressional authorization for war by permitting the president to send troops to hostile countries for 90
It should also be noted that even though it is not everyone that will hit a woman, sexually harass her or even rape; we are all complicit if we turn a blind eye or dismiss anyone of these incidents as a fluke. As we have noted recently in the scandal surrounding Harvey Weinstein (a Hollywood media giant); many people have now come forward saying they were victims of his or that they were in some form aware of what was going on but they kept quiet because of fear. This only goes to show the depth of the issue and how we as society should put more effort into making sure that the victims of such violent acts never have to question whether they will receive support or not or if they will find justice. (-- removed HTML --) (-- removed HTML --) Violence against women is a potential problem in any woman's life as long as the law and society take a lackadaisical approach to it.
Government Surveillance violates our Bill of Right The Fourth Amendment protects the people from unreasonable searches from the police or any other government official. I agree with Christopher Soghoian, technology can in fact be a civil rights issue due to government surveillance. Invading our civil rights by government officials has been attempted more than once before.
The word censorship is usually comprised of a negative connotation and many are opposed to this idea. In fact, many Americans believe the First Amendment will protect almost all censorship. For example, according to Harris Poll, 84% of American believe the
This is highly unlikely, seeing that C-51 is only using this ability to put a stop to terrorism. Therefore, it would be quite rare that your personal information would be violated, unless you are a terrorist or associated with one, in which the violation of your information would be used to keep the rest of the population safe. Although many people oppose Bill C-51, I support this anti-terror legislation. I believe that Bill C-51 will provide us with a safer and more protected country to live in, that will last for
But there is also the problem that if the NSA become completely transparent, the terrorist and other people the NSA is trying to catch, will have more knowledge as how to not get caught, which would just make the NSA ineffective. Basically the people have to decide whether they want a government that catches terrorists or one that always protects their freedoms. Most parts of the world would rather have a government that catches terrorists and keeps them safe, but unlike these countries, America (excuse my American exceptionalism) has an amendment for their constitution that bans unreasonable search and seizures. The NSA is in a difficult position because it must weigh how transparent they can be to appease the population with how much secrecy they need to function
Consistency in rulings is important because it ensures fairness. In other words, consistency means holding every individual accountable and subjecting them to the same legal standards. The ambiguity of the impeachment terms and the political nature of the process create possibilities of two presidents being differently subjected to impeachment. Of course, no two reasons for impeachment can be similar but consequences should be commensurate with offenses. For instance, Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, and dishonesty, in a way that should not reflect presidential character, non-withstanding the fact that many other presidents epitomized the same substandard behavior, and even worse at times.
He talked on his behalf about his personal worth (putting a lantern on your problems) and then “spinning” it with saying all politicians should give a list of their assets. Chapter 12: “The Press Is the Enemy” Be careful who you talk to because you never know who is going to hear. Keeping a clean mouth and not exposing or saying anything you wouldn’t want other people to know is a bad mistake. Especially if you talk to the media because the media was slur your words and make up an entire different story than you told them. It is important to be professional and clear when speaking to the media.
The proceedings were often leaked to the media and an anxious public.” (Case Against the Rosenbergs) The government tried to make sure that all members of the communist party would be unable to secure government or important jobs. The article states, “There was no penalty for perjury. While the board did not have the authority to imprison people it found guilty, some were fired when they could not prove their loyalty.