Definition Essay: Difference Between Civil Liberties And Rights

Briefly, civil rights and liberties have always moved together, and their difference is complicated as people tend to use them in interchangeable way. However, their difference is that, civil rights is the equality that people demand for whereas, civil liberty is certain activities that government itself does not have the authority to do (Muller). For example, people should not be discriminated regarding their gender, race etc. is civil right, and the first amendment which says that government cannot establish America as any religious country is civil liberty. 2 So basically, civil rights protect people from discrimination while civil liberties protect the people from power of government.

This broke people up into two groups: Anti-Federalists and Federalists. The Anti-Federalists were those in favor of strong states’ rights. They disliked the Constitution because they believed that there was a chance that Constitution would destroy the freedoms the colonies fought for. They were scared of tyranny, especially pertaining to the fact that under the new Constitution, the national government, or Congress, would be able to make decisions without even asking for the states’ permission.

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION Statutory interpretation can be defined as a process adopted by the judges or the court to interpret a statute and to apply legislation. In an interpretation there are many ambiguous terms that create a lot of uncertainty in one’s mind and this can only be resolved by judicial interpretation. Interpretation of a statute by a judiciary is important because the common people and the client’s of the lawyer need to know how the judges are interpreting the statute. Judiciary interprets the statue by using three “rules” or “canons” of interpretation.

Justinian 's Code was a set of laws set up in order to unify the empire, which was very disorganized. "Justice is the constant and perpetual wish to render every one his due ... The maxims of law are these: to live honestly, to hurt no one, to everyone his due" (The Institutes of Justinian 's Code, Document D). Justinian 's Code created the idea of laws and influenced many people such as John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. In the Declaration of Independence you can see how Justinian 's Code influenced some of the writing such as the pursuit of happiness and the idea of unalienable rights.

People often misunderstand how the right to protest free speech, and democracy works, often thinking in an entitled mentality “free speech is important for me” , the need to protest has increasing over past few years, many people are discontent with the globalization and the government. Protesting is a right, but when used for free speech, it is not always the answer.(state posision) The right to protest is one of basic human rights; however, the right to protest does not allow anyone to destroy the property. The injustices being done by groups does not merit the need more violence. As Martin King said “So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.

It is better to be punishing than kind. Machiavelli explains that cruelty can be well-thought-out if taken in one stab, the wicked deeds executed all at once, made essential for survival. Machiavelli argues, “We may add this note that when a prince takes a new state, he should calculate the sum of all the injuries he will have to do, and do them all at once, so as not to have to do new ones every day; simply by not repeating them, he will then be able to reassure people, and win them over to his side with benefits.” It is better to not make preserving them would be against one 's benefits. Leaders must avoid making themselves loathed and looked down on; the kindness of the people is a better protection than any stronghold.

The hunger and desire for power can lead to relationships being damaged. However, bad relationships can lead to the loss of power. It is also seen that kind people make better rulers, whereas unkind rulers are easily overthrown. The Tempest does a good job of showing the effect power has on relationships, and the way it can either strengthen or ruin a bond. This is important because the way a ruler treats his subjects strongly affects how much influence he has over them.

These two aforementioned perspectives are a strongly contested issue in our country and probably the entire known civilized world which challenges the fabric of how justice is administered within the criminal justice system. It is probably the number one primary determents of the modern practices of criminal law, police practices, sentencing, and corrections (Schmalleger, 2016). Our country provides each of its citizen’s individual rights which I believe at times conflict with our public order causing problems with crime control today. Many millennial and even the baby boom generation probably view our rights as a necessity without responsibility attached to it, and this has allowed many hindrances along with abuses in the pursuit of justice. For example, I want to use from my experiences as a police officer and detective the problem many I my profession face when it comes to dealing with 4th and 5th Amendment issues concerning criminal cases involving search and seizures and witness testimony.

This function of judicial review is not meant for specific cases but more importantly to guide the other two branches and we could say that thanks to this, the Supreme Court can actually modify laws to its preferences and interests. This is one of the main features that lead people to believe it is the most powerful branch of American government and even though it may sound extreme, we could very well say that the way the Supreme Court can declare something unconstitutional is unconstitutional

In the Authoritarian style of government on the other hand, has many benefits, advantages and like any other type of government, has its own disadvantages and weaknesses. I remember in our previous discussions, we talked about Hobbes’ state of nature which states that a person is naturally selfish and that without a government, there would be total chaos so in result, man agrees to be a part of a government. In this sense, man would agree to be under that government and would agree to be served. It is not assured that there would not be chaos if one joins a government but through this form of government, war would be lessened – and it could be render void. Under this type of government, there are benefits and advantages as well as restrictions.

The House of Burgesses was the first legislature, so that was the start of the idea that every colony needed a legislature. Therefore, that was a work in progress. This time in America had many complications, but document 3 showed that they had things that worked. They were still trying to figure out what worked and what did not as shown by document 6.

In today’s society I still believe that precedent plays a huge role for courts decisions as it sets the framework and guidelines for the deliberating process of certain cases and decisions. Yet unlike in the past in which precedent reigned superior amongst all other factors in court decisions it no longer settles cases by itself. For this reason I agree more with the finding and conclusion of Segal and Spaeth who both acknowledge the idea that precedent still has a role in the court but it does not carry the same legitimacy in court ruling as it once did in the past. In contemporary society it has become somewhat clear that stare decisis is starting to decline in popularity in landmark rulings suck as the same sex marriage ruling. What was once considered state judgments and excluded from federal intrusion has now become federally mandate law upheld by new decisions which contradict ruling of the past which only legally recognized marriage between opposite gender couples.

Justice Scalia is a prominent figure on the present-day Supreme Court. He 's known for immensely expressing his feelings toward a case and can quite likely hurt a person 's feelings. He does not believe in shying away from his opinion, especially when ruling on a case. In previous cases regarding reapportionment, Justice Scalia has made references pertaining to the Constitution that ultimately demonstrates that he is a textualist and an originalist. The term textualist can be defined as a justices method of interpreting a statute 's legislation, however it does not go beyond the initial purpose of the legislators who created the law.

The Court is able to check both the legislative and executive branches by overturning laws or actions taken by either branch if the justices believe that the branch is not acting in accordance with the Constitution or if an act contradicts the words of the Constitution (“The Constitution,” 27). Although this could make the judicial branch appear superior to the other branches of government, Rosenberg’s arguments in The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? show that this is not the case, especially when it comes to social reform. With judicial review, the Supreme Court can freely make important and sometimes controversial decisions with its interpretations of the law. However, the decisions are almost meaningless unless one of the other branches takes action to implement the Court’s rulings, which serves as a check on the

Their lobby spends money on direct lobbying to candidates, campaign contributions, and in assisting in drafting legislation. The result of these efforts has led to laws such as the three-strike rule in California, anti-illegal immigration legislation, and increased immigration enforcement (Cohen 2015). These policies are inherently malicious and most harmful to minorities while attempting to keep as many people in prison as possible in a bid to generate more revenue to keep their shareholders happy. As such, the elimination of private prisons would effectively destroy their lobby, removing their influence over legislation that feeds off racial