There are many principles of government from the Declaration of Independence that are still valid today. One principle is that all persons are rightfully sovereign over their own affairs, which do not infringe upon the rights of others. This principle is still valid because we should have rights and ownership to our own property, and no one should be able to take that property away. It makes sure that what you own doesn’t affect other people, and protects their property as well. The government created to protect the rights of the people, and is consented by the governed, is also an important principle. Government that consents to the wants and needs of the citizens, and is assembled for the sole purpose of protecting the people, keeps residents …show more content…
Locke’s ideas were used in the Declaration of Independence, explaining why Americans opposed British rule. The king of Britain did not acknowledge the rights of the colonists, and imposed taxes and formed new laws without the agreement from the colonists to do so. John Locke believed that the duty of a government is to protect the natural rights of the people. These natural rights were the rights to life, liberty, and property. If a government failed to protect those rights, the citizens would have the right to overthrow the government. Most of the ideas in the Declaration of Independence were also used in the Constitution, which was put into effect in 1789. John Locke’s ideas are what influenced the thoughts and ideas of the Founding …show more content…
Bakke (1978) stated that the supreme court struck down on certain types of race-based preferences in state college admissions as violating the equal protection clause. This made it easier for minorities to be accepted to colleges. Sixteen out of one hundred seats were reserved for minority applicants, which were Blacks, Asians, Chicanos, and Native Americans. A white applicant named Allan Bakke, was denied admission twice, despite having a higher GPA and MCAT score than some of the minority applicant who were accepted admission. This is discrimination because applicants were accepted just because of their race, which goes against the 14th amendment. Sure it creates diversity, but a student who is more deserving to go to a prestigious school shouldn’t be denied a spot because he isn’t a minority. Bakke won the case and a spot in the university, and the Supreme Court invalidated the school’s special admissions program. Now all students are equally likely to be accepted into a state
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
The U.S. Supreme Court Case Regents of the University of California v. Allan Bakke was officially decided June 28, 1978. The case addressed the issue of use of affirmative action in university admissions processes. Affirmative action, also referred to as positive discrimination, was a result of the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s, and was intended to ensure equal entry to educational institutions or employment entities to certain groups that “have historically suffered invidious discrimination” (Janda et al., 477). However, sometimes this method causes discrimination of other groups, through establishment of racial quotas. University of California employed the process of affirmative action and instituted racial quotas in its admissions
Up and until this point in time, the court has generally ruled that promoting educational diversity is in fact a compelling state objective, but in today’s America, educational diversity has been established and is thriving. In this day and age, using race as a factor in college admissions is not needed. The Fourteenth amendment ensures the equal protection of the law to each and every citizen. We may not discriminate in order to promote
He did not understand why he was not being admitted into the University while blacks, Asians, and other minorities were being excepted when they were plainly just not as smart as Allan. The lower court ruled that the special admissions program violated the state and federal constitutions and was illegal. Race should not be a deciding factor in the admissions process. But the lower court also ruled that Allan Bakke should not be admitted into the University of California because he failed regular admissions.
The civil rights area of the 1960s is over. Affirmative action policies based on racial quotas or preferences have been struck down by the Supreme Court, yet states have an interest in college admission that are diverse and reflect their general population. The University of Texas finds itself defending policies intended to conform to recent court rulings yet merely mentioning race as a factor in a holistic review has drawn a challenge. The University of Texas process of admissions aligns with Gutter V Bollinger. The facts of this case are in keeping with previous court precedents.
Public colleges and universities in the United States use a variety of factors to determine which students will be accepted. Universities often want a student body with diverse academic interests, talents, and backgrounds. They consider factors such as applicants’ grades, standardized test scores, community service, athletic or musical ability, and geographic location. Sometimes, universities also consider an applicant’s race or ethnicity. This case is about whether the University of Texas-Austin’s admissions policies violate the Fourteenth Amendment and its guarantee of equal protection.
Why We Shouldn’t Use Racial Quotas in College Admissions In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in the Regents of University of California vs. Bakke case, that the use of racial preferences in college admissions violates the Equal Protections Clause of the fourteenth amendment. The Equal Protections Clause says that no state shall deny a person equal protection within jurisdiction. Since then, a great deal of Affirmative Action cases against colleges have transpired. There is much dispute among colleges and potential students on the issue.
John Locke was a philosopher and political scientist. He had many interests and produced a number of writings that influenced future leaders. One of these leaders was Thomas Jefferson, who was involved with the aid of America and the act gaining independence from Britain. The Declaration of Independence and Locke’s views on government contain many similar aspects. These ideas includes the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (natural rights); the protection that is provided by the government for these rights; and the altering or abolishment of government if it fails to provide and protect the rights of the people.
The Founding Fathers rebelled against the British government for good reasons, which led to the American Revolution in 1783. The Founding Fathers were justified in rebelling against the Britain because the government was not protecting the rights of the citizens, taxing the colonists, and forced them to house British soldiers. In 1756 Britain put the first tax on the colonists. This was the Stamp Act, it required colonists to pay taxes on certain items such as newspapers, legal documents, licenses, and even playing cards.
Limited government, groups or individuals which cannot bypass the law to serve their own interests. This principle can be found in Article one section nine and it was made so the people obey the law and not surpass their power. Legitimate government is the authority of the government should depend on the consent of
The case was Jennifer Gratz v Lee Bollinger. Jennifer Gratz, a caucasian women, applied to the University of Michigan College of Literature, Science, and the Arts (LSA) and got denied. The University of Michigan’s admission was based on a 100 point, point system. The University automatically awarded 20 points to students who were a member a minority
The Supreme Court has not offered an opinion on affirmative action in higher education since its 1978 ruling in Regents of the Univ. Of California v. Bakke. In that determination, the Supreme Courts Justice Powell argued that a university could take race into account as one among a number of factors in student admissions for the purposed of achieving student body diversity. Since the time of this ruling, affirmative action programs with regard to student admissions, financial assistance, and even faculty employment have been founded mainly on achieving diversity. Since the Bakke decision, affirmative action has been an increasingly contentious issue between those in favor of its employment and those opposed to it.
In 1970s, the student Allan Bakke accused a University of California medical school of denying him twice for admission because he was white. Bakke 's qualifications (college GPA and test scores) exceeded those of any of the minority students admitted in the two years Bakke 's applications were rejected. Bakke contended, first in the California courts, then in the Supreme Court, that he was excluded from admission solely on the basis of race. The Supreme Court, in a highly fractured ruling (six separate opinions were issued), agreed that the university’s use of strict racial quotas was unconstitutional and ordered that the medical school admit Bakke, but it also contended that race could be used as one criterion in the admissions decisions of institutions of higher
These few paragraphs will talk about why I chose John Locke and why people do not need a strong government to guide us through our life and tell us what is wrong and right. Firstly, i chose John Locke as the philosopher I agree with because John Locke says that people have a natural good human nature, but believes that selfish and greedy were also a part of human nature and needed a government to remind us of what is good and bad. Human nature is a unique characteristic that includes the way we feel, think or act. Human nature can also result in good or bad decisions that's we make. People are more tempted to do worse things than good things because I feel that it is much easier to do worse than good.
A lawsuit was filed and eventually made it to the US Supreme Court in which they found the admission policy violated the Equal Protection Clause Fourteenth Amendment of Gratz and Hamacher. Prior to this case, most colleges and universities stated diversity is an integral component to a successful institution. They weren 't really sure how far they could push this issue during the admission process as it was considered a gray area. The US Supreme Courts decision in the University of Michigan 's case clarified this gray area on affirmative action policies. The university of Michigan ended up "banning" Affirmative Action for minorities.
The six basic principles of government apply to the three branches of government by establishing itself as a foundation for the three branches. Each of the six principles is the backboard in which everything that is done is based upon the rules and ideas the principles acknowledge. If these ethics were nonexistent, the branches would be unsystematic. The logic behind the importance of the principles of government would be the fact that they make sure that our government will not be too powerful and that it will not be able to take our rights away from us very easily. Adjoining to this concept, the popular sovereignty principle is brought up because this is what allows the people of a region or state to create and sustain the authority of a government, and all elected representatives are the major source of political power.