His weakness in his argument comes from the failure to acknowledge how some of these instances have changed the world for the better, such as fighting for other countries to have freedom. Ponnuru covers many of the same points that Bacevich does, such as invasion of other countries and the economic status of American people, but instead sees them as a way to make America greater. He starts by explaining his point of view and the opposing political opinions and proceeds to make his argument by discussing the founding of America and how it came to be such a strong nation, then uses examples supporting the claim that Barack Obama is not in favor of American exceptionalism. He does an excellent job of giving details and examples including the 2003 Gallup survey and quotes from President Obama. Overall Ponnuru supports his opinion by using facts; however the article has a strong conservative bias, and should be interpreted as such.
Or indeed, why not accept... later explanations by the legislators... as to what they really meant?” In this quote, Scalia acknowledges potential imperfections of legislators but then says that it is not up to the courts to correct these deficiencies . These flawed statutes should be kicked back to the legislature, which seems to be the only governmental body that has the proper authority to make corrections. Later in the piece, he says that there actually are permissible corrections that can be made to the law, provided that the change is made to the very face of an obviously misspoken statute. But what constitutes as “obvious”? Furthermore, who has the authority to make that
Locke thinks civil law is superior to natural law because it outlines what is allowed and what is not allowed. Civil law does not allow men to interpret things for themselves. Turning to a government will always force one to give up some rights in order to endure safety and preservation of their possessions. Natural law lacks established and known laws, a known and unbiased judge, and the punishment of injustice. When entering a government, a man gives up two of his powers.
The living constitution approach implies that consequences do guide decisions because rules are bent and the original meaning of the documents are reinterpreted and applied to modern situations. Originalists argue that one cannot look to judges to come up with different answers because one does not like what happens when you apply the original view. However, as strong as this argument against the living constitution approach is, they still uphold timeless principles through these actions but just not as strictly as the Originalists do. An example of this is the confrontation clause debate about whether an accused molester should or should not be required to confront the child accuser in court. The Originalist approach says that the molester should be required to confront the child accuser because consequences cannot be considered and we must stick to the original view of the documents.
It is difficult to understand what smaller or more biased, localized news sources might have had to say about Hawaii Housing Authority because their size limits the number of copies which are saved or uploaded online in the present day. However through a rigorous understanding of the social and political environment of the time we are able to gain insight into what may have been said by the common Hawaiian resident. History professor John Rosa recognizes that the law “was a natural extension of the Democratic Revolution in 1954”. He further elaborates that
Martin Luther King, Jr. explains in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail” that what is going on in the United States is ethically unstable.“ I have tried to make clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends. But now I must affirm that it is just as wrong, or perhaps even more so, to use moral means to preserve immoral ends” (7). An author John Patton even chimes in on King 's approach and questions “ Can the plan be ethically justified in line with King’s strong believe that the means for social change are as important as the ends?” (61). As a matter of fact King’s plan can be ethically justified. Anyone who has morals would be morally wrong if they used those morals to make immoral ends.
Thomas Paine opposes the ideology of government, stating that, “Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil,” (Paine 3). Essentially, the purpose of government is to protect people from preforming vices, and defend their natural right to Locke’s ideology of life, liberty and property. Without government, coercion would occur, and destroy one’s ability to express their natural rights. For America, Paine believes that the establishment of a strong fundamental government could allow for the cohesion of citizens to form a society respected by other nations
Philosophers are on a constant struggle to determine if free-will is real or an illusion. Joshua Knobe believes we will do a better job addressing philosophical questions if we “can arrive at a better understanding of the way our own minds work” and free-will is a very important part of our brain, if it were to exist (Experiments in Philosophy, Pg.3). Some philosophers may argue that if free will is an illusion “you couldn’t come up with a philosophical stance on […] new information and act on it, because that implies choice and choice is a product of free will” (If scientists unequivocally proved free will was an illusion, how would society change, if at all?, Pg. 1). So to my wonder, would there be philosophical thinking without free will?
Procedural due process and Substantive due process may seem similar but they have vast differences. The overall purpose of due process is to extend justice and fairness to the individual in relationship to government. Procedural due process is an analysis of the procedure required by the constitution when states seek to deprive people of life, liberty or property. Procedural due process is made to protect individual citizens from the coercive power of the Government by ensuring the adjunction process under valid, impartial and fair laws. Procedural due process is a basic claim under the fourteenth amendment that there is an absence of fair process.
His beliefs about what is right and what should be considered first in Athenian democracy have lived on, however, and are now even present in some aspects today’s American democracy. The principle of separation of church and state is challenged by conservatives who share Socrates’ belief that God’s word should be law, which draws a natural comparison between the two. One can also draw a very natural comparison between our democracy today and Athenian democracy. There are politicians today who exemplify Athens’ policies of putting emphasis on wealth and the power of the nation, rather than taking into account what Socrates believes to be important- the improvement of the soul. These comparisons between Athenian democracy and our government in America today help us to understand the Athenian culture and our nation is not as different from the Greeks’ as we may