There were also many other times where he acted outside of his authority that is stated in the Constitution. His views before were very anti-federalist because he expressed his opposition to the whiskey tax. And he was very upset with the alien and sedition acts that John Adams put into place. His views changed very radically as he saw the need for a stronger central government and how essential it was for the new nation to be
I disagree with Hammurabi’s code because most laws were to cruel and targeted certain people. Although the code sculpted the culture in 1797 BC, the code would have no chance of surviving in any modern country to this day due to the harsh punishments received from breaking the laws. According to Hammurabi, he stated “...the strong might not inquire the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I set up these my precious words...etc” (Doc B). Although I do not agree with Hammurabi’s code, I do believe that he was trying to create and maintain a healthy and safe environment for his people by trying to prevent crime with such a harsh set of laws. However, the consequences for not abiding these laws were too harsh.
Since, it isn’t justified for America to give us this right of speech, when they knock us down for using it. The Black Lives Matter Movement is proof of this, they protest over and over but the government doesn’t want to take responsibility or change for the better of the community. As a community we need to see actions taking place, not only just words. I think they are right for opposing the dominant culture, since it is going to take a lot of work for America to socially change, and we have stick up for what we believe in or them would never been any change in America. America has become a better nation with time, protests and the power of a counter culture always existing to fight for equality, no matter the gender and race.
Both Civil Disobedience and the Gandhi article are alike based on the fact they both discuss civil disobedience, attending prison, and standing for one’s beliefs. Civil disobedience can be seen as a good thing and a bad thing depending on to what extent one is breaking the laws. Some people may break the law because they feel that it is unfair to them but others break the for the simple fact of doing what they want in order for it to benefit themselves. Laws are meant for the majority which means even if they are not pertaining to certain citizens. Thoreau targeted laws that pertained to him, Gandhi went on strike for the better of his country and people.
Oppression has become the normal reality for the citizens crushing their spirit until someone started to break the mold. Equality 7-2521 slowly confronted the injustice in his pursuit for knowledge. In Ayn Rand 's Anthem, the government is controlling society which started out with good intentions of equality but slowly became controlling by the suppression of human spirit, and the future societies stemming for this one will allow freedoms that they were previously denied. The original government wanted to prevent the violence present in the Unmentionable Times, so they turned to equality but, really, that became oppression because the human spirit cannot be willingly subjugated. Human beings are naturally curious.
It violates their freedoms. Same sex marriage is illegal in majority of the world and the laws are unlikely to change in the near future. Gay marriage is a controversial issue that people have been fighting for years and it has finally come to the surface. We should take charge of it and bring a change. The issue that the paper deals with is, why does your gender or sex have to play such a significant role in marriage?
In spite of this, not everyone was happy about the new Constitution. 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.
Most conservative and Monarchien (that is a constitutional monarchist) rejected the idea for a declaration of rights. However, those people did believe the royal government needed a reform and a limit on its power, but they believed that a bill of rights as a step that was unnecessary and time-consuming. This was thought otherwise by the Assembly’s more radical men. They argued that the new government needs explicit limitations on its power, especially in spots where that power could disrupt the liberties of individuals. Questions were being raised left and right like; Should the document be a part of the constitution?
Should the law be a higher priority than one’s own morals? Henry David Thoreau, a well-known American Transcendentalist, once wrote that “the government itself, which is the only mode which people have chosen to execute their will is equally liable to be abused and perverted before people can act through it” (A1). After witnessing many unjust and immoral activities, such as slavery and the Mexican-American war (something he viewed as unnecessary violence fueled by avarice for land), Thoreau lost faith in the government. In order for people to avoid becoming “agents of injustice” themselves, he encouraged them to act according to their conscience rather than blindly following the law. Although I believe that in an ideal world people should
Many were persecuted for even saying something that does not correspond to their beliefs. As well as, they were also killed because the ruler of that country didn’t like that type of religion or want total control of their citizens.” Freedom of religion is severely restricted in Muslim countries”(New world Encyclopedia, 2017). Freedom of Religion is decreases, which means that there are countries that oppose Freedom of Religion. “ China and Vietnam, although they don’t govern the economy they still oppose religion”( Reese, 2015). “ Freedom of Religion is a human right that needs greater respect around the world” ( Reese, 2015).
Congress wrote up laws to punish the rebels but because of the Article of Confederation, congress could not raise up an army so that meant that federal government could not stop the rebellion. The government should have come together soon after this and made the decision to make better laws for the government to control the people.I can see why the people rebelled but it was originally the peoples fault for not helping the government fund the war but it was also the government fault for not thinking about all the scenarios before making the law. The rebellion then went on until the state of Massachusetts made up an army and fought Shay’s Rebellion. Shay’s lost the battle and those who survived were put to death. The aftermath of the catastrophe made the people see how weak the Articles of Confederation really was.
The Anti-Federalists criticized the constitution because it lacked of bill of rights to protect individual rights and made the constitution not approved. Other struggles that they faced were slave-trade. Slave-Trade had many conflicts because the north was against slavery and the south was for slavery. This made both parts of the states divide their regions. Another struggle was the effects of Shay’s Rebellion because it affected the courts in the western part of Massachusetts to shut down so that judges couldn’t confiscate their farmland.
Moreover, anti-federalist were also dissatisfied with the power of national legislative organs. To put it more precisely, they argued that the Congress, because of the ‘necessity and proper clause’ (Norton 1999), wielded too much power. However, what was totally unacceptable to anti-federalists was the lack of Bill of Rights which was viewed as a potential threat to the rights of Americans. This apprehension was particularly serious in the current historical situation when Americans had just gained their rights and, according to anti-federalist, were put under the threat of losing
The Declaration of Independence was written for the American people. King George III had imposed a number of unwise regulations and the miserable acts so the American people did not want to follow under the rules. This document was to persuade the people to finally leave King George’s power so they could be under their own government with their own laws. Now saying that, a lot of people were not completely on board with this proclamation. During this time going against the King and his acts would make you guilty of treason.
These protests were not left to protest peacefully, however, as events like the Boston Massacre occurred at many protests. The British soldiers in the colonies took to violence and even to gunfire to stop the mostly peaceful protests of rights. The colonists took this angrily, and wrote in their grievances, “That they have a right peaceably to assemble, consider of their grievances, and petition the king; and that all prosecutions, prohibitory proclamations, and commitments for the same, are illegal” (U.S. Cong.). Congress, trying to not make the same mistakes as Britain, wrote that all people could protest peacefully without any violent recompense, and that they had the freedom to do so.