We may be “one nation, under God” but, in my opinion, we will always be in an overstuffed pot that will never fully melt. Although the founding father’s opinion of America in Rights of Man is correct on the underlying facts of our country coming together as one nation, his characterization of America does not hold true today in modern society based on our current politics and social ideals. First, Thomas Paine claimed in his book, that the American government “is just.” In today’s society that is far from the truth. America’s political system thrives on corruption. Not a day goes by that corruption does not happen, we just sometimes do not hear about it.
However, there's too much freedom in regards to gun control. The second amendment clearly states that the need for arms is only necessary in case of a militia to form. We as a country are no longer in the need of a militia since we are not in the wild west (constitution amend 2). Another valid argument that if we were ever in a deficit of soldiers we would draft them like it happened in the Vietnam war. The second amendment says that we have the right to bear arms, but it never specifies their intentions.
There won't be groups like Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, ISIS, or Taliban, groups who try to take over using violence. There also wouldn’t be racism. Even though supposedly racism supposedly ended in the late 70’s, we still have much of it today. In Heaven, we also wouldn't have cliques. Everybody would be friends with everybody.
To understand why religious freedom has become so controversial, it helps to know what constitutes as religious freedom. The First Amendment states that there will be no law “respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” (First Amendment). This means that the government cannot establish anything considered an official national religion, and they cannot bar the practice of any religion within the United States as long as there is no danger “to others or to society at large” (Boston). Originally written to ensure that the religious persecution in Europe didn’t come to the United States, the First Amendment is “a major reason why the U.S. has managed to avoid a lot of the religious conflicts that have torn so many other nations apart” (“Your Right to Religious Freedom”). That doesn’t mean that the U.S. has been exempt from religious conflict, however, and there are many
A contest never occurred in Vietnam on the grounds that the two contradicting sides South area upheld by the U.S., and North part of the country (Vietnam) bolstered by China and Russia couldn 't concede to the terms of the presidential decision. The U.S. trusted that he would win the decision, due to his prominence. North and South area were situated to battle a common conflict to figure out which government would lead post-provincial Vietnam. The two sides developed their military and occupied with fights. It is known as the Second Indochina Conflict by history specialists since battling additionally occurred in Cambodia and Laos.
What is more, the language employed in this argument is relatively neutral in that they are not emotionally charged. In addition, this argument is cogent in deductive logic. British constitutional democracy follows the rule of laws, but there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy, so it is illegal to abolish the monarchy; therefore, the UK should not abolish the monarchy. In short, the deductive logic used in this argument is convincing for the audience. However, there is no positive proof provided by the poster to justify the premise that there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy.
It is quite common today to hear the opinion that military service should not exist, and that it should be cancelled. Becoming a fully neutral state with a symbolic number of public servants will be the most suitable option. I am fully confident that neutrality of your country is not always the best approach: if you live quietly and peacefully it does not necessarily mean that others will live also with respect to you. In addition, no one forces you to build a military career if you do not want that. The only thing you should do is to serve to your country up to two years and protect its citizens.
In chapter 1 Locke states it is practically impossible for anyone to claim they received a God given right to rule because no one has capability of Adam. On the other hand political power is the ability to make laws which may include a penalty of death in the event those laws are broken. Locke also explains in chapter one that use of the community to actually keep the community safe is the absolute best practice primarily because political power is simply for the good of the public. I would agree with the part of chapter 1 that states the best way to protect the community is through the use of the community. It makes me think of community policing.
He blatantly opposed war and argued that if a dispute should occur, war is not an option for a solution. King believed that war accomplishes nothing, that it is not as useful as many presume it to be (Lucks, 91). As can be seen throughout history, even to this day war does not solve problems, it only creates them. There have been wars in the past that were believed to end all wars, but as history shows, that belief was truly unsubstantiated. King thought that nonviolence is the answer to conflict.
But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right... We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’” Even he recognized that blatant originalism truly doesn’t work. Simultaneously, non-originalism can run into the problem of over-extrapolation and judicial legislation, a power the framers specifically did not want the Judicial Branch to have. In Federalist Paper 78, Alexander Hamilton explains how the Judiciary is the least dangerous and powerful branch of government: “Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the