Justice Steven David, an attorney for detainees at Guantanamo bay, asks a provoking question. “Our time will be judged instead by whether, in a time of national fear and perceived uncertainty, we followed the rule of law, adhered to the fundamental principles protected by our Constitution, and demonstrated to the world that human rights apply to all humans, not just Americans. Did we demonstrate to ourselves that, even in the most difficult times, we practiced what we had been preaching to the world, or did we let fear—and the fear of the rule of law—consume us?” (David, 2013:394). Ensuring that fear never again trumps the civil liberties promised by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be a goal for administrations going forward. The United States must rise to the challenge and work to protect civil liberties and enact smarter, more effective security
This amendment, along with others in the Bill of Rights, were proposed in order to ensure that the people would have the innate rights that everyone should have. They served as a reminder to the government that they recently fought a war to attain these rights and taking them away was not an option. Overall, the second amendment was found to be a necessity throughout the Revolutionary era in matters of not only the Militia, but also as a defensive tactic and symbol of innate liberties for the American
Patrick Henry’s speech to the Convention of Delegates in Virginia was a powerful speech given with the intent to convince the Colonies to unite and fight against the tyranny of the British. The final part of his speech seen in the above excerpt fits well into the overall structure of his speech because it appeals to pathos by using a lot of emotional diction to show the listening audience that their only way to gain freedom was war. When he states, “...but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” he is not only making the audience feel his strong emotions, but convincing them that the cause for liberty is a life or death matter, and the only way to gain the liberty that they absolutely need for survival is to fight. This excerpt ends his speech well because it leaves the audience feeling a variety of emotions, including anger and patriotism, which makes it effective towards Henry’s cause.
In certain cases, can violence be a better option than peace? In “Speech in the Virginia Convention,” Patrick Henry explains the necessity for fighting against the British to the delegates in the Virginia Convention. Henry develops his viewpoint by describing how fighting for freedom from the British is a better option for the colonies than keeping peace with the British and how the war for freedom is inevitable. One way Patrick Henry develops his viewpoint is by explaining how fighting for freedom from the British is better than keeping peace with them. In his speech, Henry proposes the question, “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?” Henry is asking the delegates if peace is worth being
John Locke declared that through natural law, all people have the right to life, liberty, and property. In extent, under social contract, the people could instigate a revolution against the government when it acted against the interests of its citizens and that they had the power to replace the government with one that served the interests of its citizens. In opposition to Hobbes, who views government as almighty and immune to revolution, Locke permits revolution in circumstances of long and sustained abuse. The Bill of Rights and The Federalist Papers, too, can be seen as fortifying the right of revolution. In Federalist 28, Hamilton expresses this thought by saying, “if the persons entrusted with supreme power became usurpers…The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms...” Furthermore, these documents seek to ensure that the people do not suffer the abuses of a tyrannical sovereign ever again.
The only way to control a faction, Madison claims, would be to remove the causes of a faction- to do this, one has to destroy liberty, which is a “cure worse than the disease itself”. Thus, just as in Locke highlights the importance of personal liberty and the main point of government, Madison follows suit and claims that the ultimate aim of the government is to protect and serve individuals without infringing upon their rights to their opinions and their
One example of this can be found streaming from the second amendment to the bill of rights which states that " A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", not realizing overtime both documents have been poorly understood and has shaped the values of our nations views concerning firepower which is many reasons for the brute violence within the public. (Whitney 71) The second amendment relates to the right to form a militia that owns firearms, not an individual 's gun rights. The misunderstanding of the documents would also lead to "standing armies in time of peace [being] dangerous to liberty", creating the perception that men with guns would challenge individuals ' liberty and rights to whether they agree with gun use or not. (Whitney 71) Another point of asseveration pertaining to gun control would be the number of issues that need to be looked over and ameliorated. Like "people in different regions of the country have different ideas about guns but is that any reason to replace civic discourse with ideologic rants", Whitney is speaking about how America considers outside country views as discussion of gun regulations and when it comes down to guns and politics, the cultural war is still very much existent.
democratic system of government is based. Then again, Justice William Brennan and other Supreme Court Justice agreed with Johnson and held that flag burning constitutes a form of symbolic speech which is protected by the First Amendment. They made a notation that freedom of speech protects actions that society may find very offensive, but society 's outrage alone is not justification for suppressing free speech. In conclusion, Texas v. Johnson was a landmark case the established the right of American’s to burn an American flag as a symbol of expression and stressed the important of First Amendment freedom of
He believed that people should be able to overthrow their leader if they were not happy and that is exactly what the colonists did. After the American Revolution was won the Declaration of Independence was then formed after multiple drafts. This document demonstrated Locke’s philosophy that all men were born equal with the natural right of life, liberty, and property. The Declaration of Independence was highly influenced by Locke’s ideas and if he was alive to be able to see the outcome, he would be very pleased to say the
A large one in our society is the racism against Muslims. People assume the worst of them because ‘they cause so many terrorist attacks’, however, that isn’t true. They are blamed for a lot of horrible events because of their race and culture which in turn, really hurts them. Our world shouldn’t be full of racism anymore, but somehow, there still is a bunch of it
Trevor Coulombe 26/9/15 Should civil liberties be suspended during national emergency? In the UK citizens are given several different civil liberties: the right to life; freedom of expression; freedom of religion and conscience; freedom of movement; freedom of association; the right to protest; freedom from arbitrary arrest; freedom from torture; the right to fair trial; political rights and property rights. In looking at these civil liberties a paradox is presented. The paradox is that acts of terror thrive in the freedom of democracies. This is to say that when the people are given the freedom of association, expression and movement, this will condone acts of violence, designed to destabilise or destroy State structures.
1) Jefferson’s claim in the first paragraph is that we have the right to stop and abolish whatever has negative effects on our lives. And he supports that by saying in line 4 “…which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them…” This explains how it is our right to do whatever we have to do, to put whatever is dangerous to us behind. 2) The overall reason for the colonies to separate from Britain that Jefferson outlines in the second paragraph is that, as stated in lines 13-14, “…whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it…” This supports the fact that the king is such a government. One that is destructive but that we have the right to change. 5) The most
Any identity can be used to create a social inequality and in this case the religious minority identity is being used to create injustice. Terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, reformed the religious minority identity of Muslim Americans which caused social inequality. After the terrorist attack on September 11 being a Muslim American is associated with the terrorism and created systematic inequality. Clearly the 9/11 attacks caused Muslims to be labeled negatively, but how it exactly happened is the important question here. Byng states that “a source of data for an empirical analysis of external identity construction is the media” (662).
“A Bill of Rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse”--- Thomas Jefferson December 20, 1787. The founders believed that the bill of rights was written to give the people a document that stated their individual liberties. Furthermore, they felt that it was extremely important that the government went by exactly what was stated in the documents. In regards to the general welfare and security, the government has the bargain with the Founding Fathers on the importance of the individual liberties guaranteed in the Bill of Rights in many ways. One example of our government compromising on the liberties in the bill of rights is freedom of speech.
When asked why, he responded with, "if you accept the tenets of Islam that you would be incapable by abiding under the Constitution." With this blanket statement, Ben Carson directly attacked the Muslim community’s honor and integrity. Therefore, I wrote a letter to Ben Carson addressing his comment the only way I know how, informative and respectful. In the letter, I made it clear that my emotions do not object to him having an opinion, but the false statement that he placed on the Muslims. In the letter, I illustrated how his comment subconsciously makes Muslims feel inferior, and the effects of his comment on people who know little to no Muslims.