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.
This argument convinced the judge and the law was considered unconstitutional. Not only did this case violate the first amendment but also the fourteenth amendment. That amendment states that a state cannot enforce a law that should take away the privileges of the citizens of the United States. It also mentions that a state should not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without the due processing of law. Especially with the DiCenso case though complete separation was impossible.
Carsten argued that due to the army’s independent position, the reichswehr weakened the democratic order which would be a contributing factor to its demise. • "The Republic was incapable of incorporating the Reichswehr... It [The Republic] was unable to control it or to win its unqualified allegiance." - Louis L Snyder Body Paragraph 3 – Proportional Representation Inherent flaws imbedded in the constitution played a pivotal role in the eventual downfall of the Weimar Republic, a way in which the Treaty of Versailles alone could not be responsible for. • The inauguration of the proportional representation voting system, whilst debatably being the ‘advanced democracy in the world’, was a facilitator of social distrust due to the perception it generated of instability.
Despite the other justifications, Thucydides believes the war was not fought for justice, but because of the Spartan fear of increasing Athenian greatness (Thucydides 1998, I.23). This cause is also considered the “least openly expressed” because it is not what the two states can use to mobilize armies and get public support that would be necessary to win (Thucydides 1998, I.23). Thus, the war may not sincerely have been started in a pursuit of what is right, but with self-interested motivations to acquire power and assuage
Foreign Intervention in South American Affairs In the past, the United States of America has inserted itself into foreign affairs, only for negative consequences to occur. In 1823, U.S. president James Monroe introduced the Monroe Doctrine, a statement that aimed to prevent European intervention in New World affairs. (Monroe). However, throughout the centuries afterwards, the Monroe Doctrine has been abused by the United States as an excuse to insert itself into South and Latin American affairs, even though the Doctrine itself does not mention this. Because of this, the United States has a responsibility to not intervene in South/North American countries such as Venezuela in order to restore democracy in a natural and non-intrusive way to its New World neighbors.
"History inevitability", "Dred Scott Case" which is the immediate flashpoint of American Civil War, can be avoided? If you bring a case to the court today, you will get a fair trial, because equality has become a social consensus. However, what would happen if an American slave bought a case to the court for freedom-seek in slavery-legal period? In fact, he had no rights to get freedom for he was not regarded as an US citizen or even a human being. "Dred Scott Case" is not an occasional misunderstanding in that case pronounced by the United Supreme Judicial Court.
This was due to the position of the USA that the juridical content of the ‘laws of humanity’ could not be defined. They went into the nature of war, after taking objection to the use of the terms ‘Laws of Humanity’, wherein they went on to say that the war by its nature was inhuman, but consistent with the laws and customs of war and they further said that the judicial tribunal could only deals with and administers the existing laws and it is not the forum to discuss the moral laws and laws contrary to principles and laws of humanity. “ The
Few standard Jacksonians had moral doubts about dark subjugation or any craving to intrude with it where it existed. More vital, they accepted that the mounting antislavery disturbance would occupy consideration from the manufactured imbalances among white men and bombshell the party's fragile intersectional unions. Where it counts, numerous suspected that the slavery issue was yet a smokescreen hurled by displeased elitists looking to recover the activity from the genuine individuals' reason. The Jacksonians' essential policy push, both in Washington and in the states, was to free government of class predispositions and disassemble the top-down, credit-driven motors of the business upheaval. The war on the Second Bank of the United States
The Treason Clause is considered a forgotten constitutional law in the United States. The Treason Clause complicates both liberal and conservative positions. Firstly, the Treason Clause explicitly states that individuals are capable of engaging in warlike actions against it; secondly, the Treason Clause again states exactly the opposite persons who levy war against the United States are entitled to specific procedural protections (The Forgotten Constitutional Law of Treason, 2006). Whoever is subjected to treason prosecution under the constitutional law must be tried in an open civilian court and may not be detained by the military as an enemy. In the 21st century this rule of law may be forgotten, however, was familiar to the lawyer during
He criticized the Hobbes state of nature from many points, but here, I am going to speak the strongest one (for me) among them which rigorously claim that the analogy of individual beings is not fully true in relation to state. “States are not vulnerable to violent attack to the same degree that individuals are” has been written in page 47. For clarification, he claimed that the violent attack can end with sudden death, and disappearance for individual, but for states it cannot –then for support turned to Clausewitz view “‘war is never absolute in its results’ and that defeat in it may be ‘ a passing evil which can be remedied’ ” (p 48). I found also counter critics of Hedley logical in response to prominent statement of Hobbes- “state of