I organized my sources in that is arranged first by arguments for my topic and lastly by opposition. It is not in any alphabetical order. I wanted to discuss about the prevention of drinking and driving because the source I have was very credible. Then it is followed by different measures to help people not drink and drive. For example tougher laws in effect.
The second amendment states that there should and will be no possession of firearms for anyone with a felony and/or a mental illness. Yes, the second amendment protects individual gun ownership but is it not obvious that people should not sell firearms or weapons to anyone that seems challenged or incapable of keeping their community safe with a gun? Amendments of course make your liberty excessively known but it should not get to the point that people should fear getting shot while out walking late at night or doing daily usual things in their
The rationale behind this statement was that, there was no violation of the 13th or 14th amendment. This was due to the fact that the distinction between the races did not imply anything that broke the rights assumed in the 13th amendment. Not only that, but the 14th amendment only protects the people in only a political point of view instead of social equality as well. The backing behind all of this is that all citizens in the eyes of the constitution have no color and as a result shows that there is no difference in class. Therefore, since Plessy insisted in being in coach, which was not for his particular race, he was subject to being fined and jailed for his
If the peacekeepers aren’t keeping the peace, then the reasoning for having a position of power is null. Literature Review *Needs Serious Help The literature used for this subject is closely related to one another with key differences between each different articles approach. They all address the concept of police corruption and deviance in general but take different stances on the cause of it and how it’s fundamentally made within a flawed system. The articles to follow suit all provide insight to previous methods of addressing the matter. The Effect of Sanctions on Police Misconduct by
I think that this bill should definitely be up for debate. To impose a ban that would potentially stop families or individuals from obtaining food, a basic need is a type of discrimination. While I do not agree or condone the selling of drugs, I do believe that there are various reasons why a person may resort to do something that is against the law. This bill does not leave any room for people who have paid their debt to society and is trying to get their lives on track. The bill also only specifies that “convicted drug felons” not any other convicted felons receives this lifetime ban.
That is to say, one person can’t be prevented from using it; also, if one person is using it, it doesn’t reduce others’ enjoyment of using it. Public goods include fresh air, national defense, street light, etc. It would be impossible to let private markets to provide public due to the free-rider problem. In other words, everyone wants to receive the benefit of it, but no one wants to pay for it. As a result, the goods is not produced at all.
Officers are mandatory to read the Miranda Rights to suspects before questioning. Miranda rights gives suspects an opportunity to not answer questions from the police and to be knowledgeable of their constitutional rights. After suspects hear their Miranda right they know that their answers will be used against them for evidence in the court room. The reason the government required the Miranda Rights law because suspects or not everyone has the constitutional rights and it 's up to the police to determine if the suspect is guilty. Miranda Rights isn 't necessary helping out guilty defendant, but it 's a better procedure to detain suspects without violating their constitutional rights.
So our opposition clearly wants to make the situation worse by ignorantly indicting police officers without a grand jury? This proposition means that potential defendants are not present during grand jury proceedings and neither are their lawyers. The prosecutor gives the jurors a "bill" of charges, and then presents evidence, including witnesses, in order to obtain an indictment. These proceedings are secret, but transcripts for the proceeding may be obtained after the fact. Prosecutors like grand juries because they function like a "test" trial and enable prosecutors to see how the evidence will be received by jurors.
Freedom of assembly has to be balanced with other people’s right if it causes problem in public order. When people think freedom of assembly, it’s always have to do with people protesting which causes violence. But they plea that’s peaceful protest when it’s not. People should have freedom to roam where they please and go wherever they’d like, just not when it involves violence on public property. “Although the government can't stop you from joining with a group of others to make your views known, you must do it in a peaceful manner” (The Right To Gather Has Some Restrictions).
Law is not just a thing to obey for yourself but making a peaceful society. What I will explain to you in this article will, how we are connected with the law and I hope, make you see sense in the importance of our laws in the society we live in. To be against the importance of laws in our society would show one to be ignorant and naïve. I encounter the law on a daily basis when I am driving. I have to follow the speed limit of each road, I have to signal before changing lanes, my vehicle must be in good condition in order to safely drive and I must obey all road signs as they are set in place to ensure the safety of everybody.