This is a clear example that shows that even the most controversial parts of the Patriot Act are not just constitutional, but strongly supported by the Constitution. From this, many see that any attempted claims that the Patriot Act is wrong in the law are based merely on thought. But, there are more than one sections of the Patriot Act that are up for debate. Any arguments against the Patriot Act are destroyed quickly due to the fact that, “no single provision of the Patriot Act has ever been found unconstitutional,” (McNeil). Once again, it is clear that the Patriot Act is constitutional.
Liberty is essential to have for a citizen living in a democracy. Benjamin Franklin, a forefather, and a American icon quotation, " They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety ". All citizen should have Liberty in their lives. Freedom of speech and Freedom of religion is the most important part of having freedom. The First Amendment in the Bill of Right the amendment stats "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances".
For example, he boldly states that “If the machine of government is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.” This supports Thoreau’s claim because if the government makes a law that forces you to be an agent of injustice, then you have the right to break it. In addition, Thoreau believes that the best government, is the one that does not make a lot of laws. " That government is best which governs least." A government should not dictate to the citizens, but enforce whatever is agreed among the society.
agree that if I were alive at the end of the 19th century I would have supported the Anti-Imperialist League for the following reasons: First, imperialism is inherently antithetical to values upon which this nation was built. The United States Constitution explicitly states "...governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That, to whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it...". Clearly, to impose foreign rule on any population is a decidedly undemocratic act and a violation of the fundamental human rights identified by the founding fathers.
Both just and unjust people would do injustice if they have the power to do so (Group 3 & Collaboration, P3). C1- One will do justice only when he or she lacks the power to do injustice (Group 3 & Collaboration, C1). C2- Those with the power will choose injustice unless compelled by justice (Group 3 & Collaboration, C2).
10, his views of the inevitability of factions. Madison sees factions as potentially harmful to the political process and dangerous to the progress that government can create for its citizens. Using the works of previous authors such as Lock and Montesquieu, Madison realizes that people are naturally going to strive for their own self-interest when given the liberty to do so, “There are two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” (Madison pg. 461).
True freedom is commonly defined as absolute choice; whether it is in thought, actions or speech, freedom is an individual’s ability to take control of their lives and enables the human experience. Civilization views freedom as an ideal, yet the means of achieving it and whether or not freedom is truly achieved remains ambiguous. There are often individuals in civilized society who struggle and believe themselves to be free after a hard earned victory against oppression. Yet, the implications of maintaining a civilized social structure upon freedom is often overlooked. Many individuals view themselves as free from a subjective standpoint, although true freedom has an absolute meaning.
To begin with, this theory relies on moral absolutes which can be defined as actions that are entirely right or entirely wrong. Deontologists cannot consider the consequences of their actions, even if the consequences of a particular action bring about more harm than the act itself. Deontology theory says that certain types of actions are either absolutely right or wrong, but provides no way in which to distinguish which action may be right or wrong and thus duties and principles can conflict (Preston, 2007). For instance,
Freedom is an idea that can be identified and interpreted in a variety of ways. It can be thought of as equality or the simple ability to roam freely. In the grand scheme of things, however, freedom is the idea that anyone can live without doubt that no force is holding them back in any way, shape, or form. In some cases, the idea that people are free can be manipulated, as their perception of freedom may change to suit the likes of others with the ability of manipulation. In the novel, Brave New World, Aldous Huxley explores the concept of freedom and how people can be misled into believing they are free using certain tactics.
Freedom of Speech Freedom of speech is the freedom all people have, to express what they consider and express any opinions. It is an ability to express our opinions freely without being punished or censored. All people throughout the world are entitled and must have right to freedom of speech. However, how much do we know about freedom of speech: when did it occur? Does every countries have it?
The First Amendment guarantees of free speech are a treasured part of the American tradition and set us apart from almost every other country. Many democratic countries support free speech. However, hate speech is not considered part of it and is prohibited under human rights standards. In sharp contrast, US continues to support its position that all hate speech bans violate the First Amendment. The US is the only country from the commonwealth countries where intended provocation to racial hatred is constitutionally protected speech, believing such matter of principle is wrong and ineffective.
The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the right of “freedom of speech” Bill of Rights, n.d., p. 1). It was designed to guarantee a free exchange of ideas, even if the ideas are unpopular. One of the most controversial free speech issues involves hate speech. Hate speech is a public expression of discrimination against a vulnerable group, based on “race, ethnicity, religion,” and sexual orientation (Karman, 2016, p. 3940). Under the First Amendment there is no exception to hate speech; although, hateful ideas are protected just as other ideas.
Douglas point out that cases like Francis v. Resweber and Robinson v. California are examples of case being settled from due process ban of cruel and unusual punishment, which forbids the judicial system of imposing by the legislature. He believes that this type of punishment is targeting people from different race, religion, social position, and/or class. There is evidence that the provision of the English Bill of Rights of 1689, from which the language of the Eighth Amendment was taken, was concerned primarily with selective or irregular application of harsh penalties, and that its aim was to forbid arbitrary and discriminatory penalties of a severe
This authority was viewed as the antithesis to personal freedom and the driver of personal moral transformation. In fact, as early as the first chapter of his groundbreaking book “On Liberty” Mills stated that” The struggle between Liberty and Authority is the most conspicuous feature in the portions of history” (3). Further explaining the idea of tyranny of majority and how it affects personal freedoms Mills states that “society can and does execute its own mandates and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression since . . . it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself” (10). This leads into another theory of Mills that supports my conclusions, that of The Limits of Liberty for other regarding actions.
Thoreau alleges people have the right to oppose an oppressive government, it is their duty to rebel against it. If a government does not serve its purpose of protection and fair treatment, the duty of its citizens would be to overrun it. An individual 's liberty is conveyed through its government, by allowing a tyranny, men are giving up their right to think and act for themselves. He declares that if the government mandates the people to follow unfair laws. the people should break those laws.