The idea of liberty seems most likely to stem from the desire to curtail the abuses made by monarchies he deemed illegitimate. Liberty seems to be, thus, not an absolute attribute of a legitimate government. Rather its definition is malleable and based on the more absolute ideas of workmanship and the consent of the
Plato believed in a hierarchy principle more so then feeding into our desires. Our desires here would be freedom, which Plato also sees as a threat to society in that excessive obsessions with freedom will lead to anarchy and tyranny.
According to the story, the human understanding of justice is that it revolves around the actions assumed by the law rather than the actual outcomes. The idea of justice constructed upon the process accepted is based on the simple fact that it ensures that all the pertinent issues are addressed. Additionally, if the process is not followed correctly, it’ll become too complex to explain to the accuser how an action done good to them will now make up for an action done wrong to them before. This idea should be applied in today’s culture because the public is accountable for serving justice and it is obligated to follow the correct process in doing so appropriately. Much of the Assyrian law concept of justice is comparable to the Babylonian law because both had many very harsh punishments.
There are two types of such negative influences upon justice: The first incorrect influences affecting the independence of justice as a system or the independence of judges as individuals stress factors acting on justice. The analysis of safety measure that fight such reasons and that anticipate to protect the functional independence of the system and the individual independence of the judge, for example life tenure, presence of a judicial council. Here we may embrace, but are not restricted to, political involvement in the
This ideology is counter to that of liberalism as it infringes on the natural rights of its citizens, and it is undemocratic as this society would not have the consent of the governed as a whole. Furthermore, counters the rule of law because the author believes the authority should never be challenged, and therefore the author suggests that the authority is exempt of these laws. A thinker such as Hobbes would agree with the author of this source as he believed that without a strong government it would lead to nation wide chaos, such as that that the author describes through the use of the phrase, “A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed.”. Additionally, Locke would disagree with all parts of this source, as he believed that individuals know for themselves what is best and therefore should have the freedom to make their own decisions. For the second sentence of this source Locke and Rousseau would both disagree as they believed that consent of the governed was vital to society, which directly contradicts the authors issues with the challenging
“Suspect classifications” include groups that have been historically discriminated against, they possess a visible trait, they are powerless in the political system to protect themselves, and their visible trait does not stop them from participating in society in a meaningful way. Race, religion, national origin, and alien status are all considered suspect classification, and thus any governmental law or policy that discriminates them will be reviewed under strict scrutiny. For a law or policy to be declared constitutional under strict scrutiny, it must be satisfy three components: it must have a compelling state interest which is generally accepted as necessary and crucial, it must be narrowly tailored to achieve that state interest, and it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that state interest. The Courts have never established a set definition of what constitutes a compelling state interest, thus making it harder to determine the remaining two components. One example of a compelling state interest includes national security.
The fault in this lies in the motivation behind the justices’ decisions; with judicial activism, it is nearly impossible to view law as objective and free of bias. Many fear that in acting as policy makers, justices bring their own partialities and beliefs into account instead of allowing the literal interpretation of the Constitution guide their decisions. On the other hand, judicial restraint can also be used when deciding cases. Judicial restraint refers to justices interpreting the United States Constitution word for word, keeping from bringing their own beliefs or biases into account and most importantly refraining from assuming the role of policy maker. Under judicial restraint, justices work to uphold the laws that are already in place and to maintain the laws as they stand except in the event that they are blatantly unconstitutional.
There are situations which I would deem it necessary, and situations in which I believe it to be excessive and unnecessary to the bettering of todays society. The goal of laws and the judicial system is to keep peace, promote general welfare, and to impose penalties on those who commit crimes, and protect the innocent. The judicial system is designed to make fair and equitable decisions on behalf of society in order to achieve those
Unethical Media in social Media Unethical media is a big problem nowadays and it should be solved, it is morally wrong, against accepted standards of behavior. Ethics is the way people behave based on how their beliefs about what right and wrong influence behavior. Ethics is defined as the analysis, promotion and evaluation of what establishes virtuous character and correct conduct according to the best principles available. Ethics doesn 't ask simply the way to live in a good manner. It asks how one must live well in an ethical manner, i.e., in goodness as well as in the right relation amongst one other, a task which might necessitate us to sacrifice personal benefits, in carrying out duties or in enduring persecution.
Although it can be seen as a reasonable theory to implement in times of controversy, there are a few issues that still arise from this theory. Some weaknesses include inconsistency, and lack of substantiation, but one of the biggest flaws of living constitutionalism as argued by originalists, is that judges are given too much power, and belittle the power of the legislature and the American people. The main question that arises is how does the public know that judges are the best representatives to comprehend the nations fundamental values? Judges are granted the responsibility to alter the meaning of the constitution based on their own personal motives and beliefs, and they have powers that are far beyond those of legislators, who were structured to ensure representation of the American people. Congress and judges come from different environments, and different motives.