The law may sometimes be “inconsiderate” but it keeps us in order. We may sometimes say it is harsh but it is because we are used to be “free” in a way that we do not follow rules and order. These things happen to us because we are not led by a good public official. Even the officials do not follow the law because they think they are an exemption which is not. We cannot remove the law.
Although the code sculpted the culture in 1797 BC, the code would have no chance of surviving in any modern country to this day due to the harsh punishments received from breaking the laws. According to Hammurabi, he stated “...the strong might not inquire the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I set up these my precious words...etc” (Doc B). Although I do not agree with Hammurabi’s code, I do believe that he was trying to create and maintain a healthy and safe environment for his people by trying to prevent crime with such a harsh set of laws. However, the consequences for not abiding these laws were too harsh.
In his argument, he says that any law that restores and lighten are just laws, and anything that corrupts or are treats people without respect are immoral. After giving his argument he concludes that segregation is something morally wrong. He is giving all this argument because he is trying to tell authority that he is a good normal citizen. He wants and will follow the just laws, and he also thinks laws are something essential for a world to function. Although he still has already proven his point, he starts to get into the philosophical principle of breaking the laws.
The freedoms of men and women are guaranteed under law, yet somehow we tell eachother that our speech is incorrect and should be looked down upon. How can the liberties of other people be less valuable than than your own? Americans tend to simply push an opposing opinion out of their way, deeming it invaluable and useless, but when someone does that same thing to them, they are up in arms about their right to free speech. Walter Lippman uses powerful pathos and strong diction in his article The Indispensable Opposition to develop his argument that individuals must respect and listen to other’s opinions in order for society to grow as a whole. People’s emotions are always hard to decipher and angle so that their opinion is altered, or even changed.
Should the law be a higher priority than one’s own morals? Henry David Thoreau, a well-known American Transcendentalist, once wrote that “the government itself, which is the only mode which people have chosen to execute their will is equally liable to be abused and perverted before people can act through it” (A1). After witnessing many unjust and immoral activities, such as slavery and the Mexican-American war (something he viewed as unnecessary violence fueled by avarice for land), Thoreau lost faith in the government. In order for people to avoid becoming “agents of injustice” themselves, he encouraged them to act according to their conscience rather than blindly following the law. Although I believe that in an ideal world people should
This is a very sensitive subject, but thank God my government gives its citizens fair rules. But a certain country, very close to ours, doesn’t give people of other sects the tiniest bit of freedom. Too much restriction can lead to outbursts and rebellion. Government control, to a certain extent, is needed to keep everyone organized and in line.
People often misunderstand how the right to protest free speech, and democracy works, often thinking in an entitled mentality “free speech is important for me” , the need to protest has increasing over past few years, many people are discontent with the globalization and the government. Protesting is a right, but when used for free speech, it is not always the answer.(state posision) The right to protest is one of basic human rights; however, the right to protest does not allow anyone to destroy the property. The injustices being done by groups does not merit the need more violence. As Martin King said “So I have tried to make it clear that it is wrong to use immoral means to attain moral ends.
Many people claim it is a dangerous and risky if prisoners retain the right to vote in political matters. After all, they have somehow violated the laws of the state by committing a crime that led to their imprisonment. But democratic, constitutional states like Germany have not denied prisoners their right to vote. The following essay will argue in favour of that decision.
In Gulliver’s first two expeditions, he condemns these vices without providing a ready-made solution to avoid their effects in the society and in politics. Describing Lilliput, he gives at most some leads such as, for example, rewarding people who observe the laws or choosing honourable persons for public employments. In Brobdingnag, Gulliver doesn’t meet the vices which are denounced by Swift, but the moral fibre of the giants seems to be a natural disposition of this people and not the result of the institutions of their country. Indeed these institutions aren’t accurately depicted in Swift’s
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.
This could be a reason why people believe the system is so heavily criticized, when in reality people only criticize it because they disagree, not because the system is actually unjust. This idea shows that maybe the American criminal justice is not as an unjust as people make it
The conflict between the parties is weakening the power of our national government because without Congress working together to create laws they are opposing each other. Even though this opposition may weaken us it is one of Congress 's’ implied powers. An implied power is a power that is practically given to the federal government, also known as an elastic clause. Congress’ arguments on gun control is wasting time, while they are arguing over something that may not ever be changed rather that passing new reasonable laws that can strengthen our country. The Democratic sit in was overall a failure at moving any
But, you can’t always trust them, you can’t have this hope that they will always have a good influence and never break the law again. As you know, ex-cons had made a mistake, those who trusted them before might have thought that the person would make good choices, but it turned out that the person made bad choices and broke the law. So, that’s why ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. Ex-cons should not have the rights to vote again. They Have already broken the law, so it is unfair to let ex-cons have the rights to vote again.
Within today’s society individuals struggle to view one another as allies, rather people categorize other’s as being enemies. This sense of individuals being suspicious of one another is not a concept that is shocking to society. For instance, during the time of the founding father’s established the United States Constitution, there were two groups: the anti federalist and the federalist. The anti-federalist opposed the ratification of the Constitution because these people were eerie of a strong federalized government that infringed on individuals right’s. As the federalist supported the Constitution and advocated that the document protected individuals from government regulations.