However, there is no positive proof provided by the poster to justify the premise that there are no constitutional devices for abolishing the monarchy. In addition, only one reason is not persuasive for the audience who may not accept
Even the Court who is a body of Justice cannot over rule any of its law even though it is an unjustified law but only if it is a valid act. In short no one or any such body can set aside an act of
Dicey reduced the issue of parliamentary sovereignty to three primary principles , each of which demonstrate the potential for constitutional crisis and instability in the United Kingdom. The first principle states that ‘Parliament is the supreme law making body and may enact any laws on any subject matter’. In theory, this means that there are no substantive legal limits regarding what Parliament may or may not legislate about, with only democracy acting as a foil for this power, effectively enabling Parliament to create any law no matter how absurd, impractical or unjust. As Sir Leslie Stephen said , ‘If a legislature decided that all blue-eyed babies should be murdered, the preservation of blue-eyed babies would be
There is little logic behind it, and overall doesn’t make too much sense. An individual pledging for its entire community by themselves without their own identity is one large paradox that doesn’t add up, no matter which way you try to solve
If the laws they create and impose are all morally just then there is no problem with citizens following the laws when there aren’t any morally ambiguous laws. Look at the story of Antigone for this concept, in Antigone the king enforces a law that morally does not seem right. Because of this, Antigone refuses to follow the law, and the king even goes through many measures to not punish her. A society with any citizens not following the laws, and the authority not punishing them for that crime means that they are not a legitimate authority. It is not enough for an authority just to be able to get people to blindly follow the laws, but those laws must be morally right and the people in understanding of
People cannot question laws coming from legal authorities. Thus, Hart would state the jurors had a legal obligation to enforce the law. While it is true that jurors had an obligation to uphold the law, it does not necessarily follow that the jurors in Morris did the wrong thing. The Fugitive Slave Law was a question of morality; clearly, it did not uphold to morality.
It makes no particular sense for an amendment to ban the means of acquiring a product, but not the product’s actual consumption. This, in turn, creates confusion and a sort of gray area between legal and illegal. Accordingly, Kyvig notes that doctors and pharmacists were able to legally prescribe alcohol, which was a significant (and frequently exploited) loophole. The malleability of the 18th amendment is a significant part of what made it a failure. This brings to mind the topic of social class.
Concepts were invented by man to make sense of his subjective world. Language and concepts have no anchor in the objective world. It does not come from the ‘real’ world, but from the anthropomorphic world of humans. There’s no objective validity in concepts and are therefore fictitious or false (2010, p. 83).
Not having a say in whether you agree or disagree with the scenario just seems inhumane. In Gallagher’s PowerPoint it sates, “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood” (GP 85). Being a cultural relativist contradicts this statement. They technically aren’t free because they voice their own opinion.
Although it is usually for self-protection, it might as well protect both parties; for instance, if one spouse has a debt, creditors might go after the marital property. By filing a prenuptial agreement, creditors cannot go after property which is not entirely from the debtor. There are as well some restrictions for a prenuptial agreement; for example, child support, child custody, or illegal matters cannot be treated as part of an agreement since no court would approve them. In child support and custody cases, it wouldn’t be approved since the court retains the power to decide what the best interests for the child are. There are other topics that might not be discussed in this type of agreements, like personal matters (i.e. rules, personal preferences, details about chores, etc.)
Too much enforcement or too little would be catastrophic and a chaotic way to live. We cannot find a perfect “middle ground” that would be an acceptable way to be just. There is no perfect measurement and we can only understand justice through experience. Stephen Carter believes justice cannot be forced or bought. We cannot force someone through laws or limitations to be just, or
No, ISIS does not serve the six purposes of government. It does not promote the general welfare, because that would imply that it were a servant to its citizens, but it is not because it does not provide services, such as schools or air filtration, to benefit all or most of its people. Also, they do not work to form a more perfect union, because it does not try to promote linking its people or unify them. Justice is not established because many of its people are mistreated, and justice has come to mean the law is reasonable and fair. To “insure domestic tranquility” is focused on maintaining law and order within its land.
And although the concept of an “unembodied being” does not coincide with our perceptual reality does not mean that the concept can not be true. In a sense, we merely refute the idea of the after-life because it does not seem logical and thus, we do not have a legitimate argument against the after life. A being wholly composed of a soul need not to move or talk, but the being may only “imagine thinking, wondering, doubting, and so on,”(Hospers 281) and all of those actions can more or less be performed without a
Justice Scalia would most likely write a dissenting opinion pouring out the issues this case presents. Not only that, but would call out justices stances on the case, for example Chief Justice questions if the case needs substantive information. This decision should not be up to the courts, but to the states. The role of the courts is to interpret the Constitution and distinguishing the lines between what is constitutional and unconstitutional and since there is nothing specifically stated in the Constitution on the redistricting of districts, it is not our duty to decide this case.”
The field of criminal justice needs theories to exist in the real world. The course Criminal Justice 325 helps future law enforcement agents understand why theory is needed and how to use them. Theories go through the steps of the criteria of theory evaluation to even become a theory. This is desired because if there are no guidelines theories would be all over the place. With theories about crime come crime itself.