I will show that although the conclusion follows from the premises, not all the premises are true. Similarly for the epistemological component of Mackie’s argument, I will prove that the premises from his argument can be refuted. With the failure of both components, I will show that Mackie’s argument from queerness does not succeed in proving that objective values do not exist. Mackie’s argument from queerness is founded upon a naturalistic account of the world. The main idea of the argument from queerness seems to imply that we should not believe in the existence of objective values because they would not fit in with a naturalistic world.
According to the story, the human understanding of justice is that it revolves around the actions assumed by the law rather than the actual outcomes. The idea of justice constructed upon the process accepted is based on the simple fact that it ensures that all the pertinent issues are addressed. Additionally, if the process is not followed correctly, it’ll become too complex to explain to the accuser how an action done good to them will now make up for an action done wrong to them before. This idea should be applied in today’s culture because the public is accountable for serving justice and it is obligated to follow the correct process in doing so appropriately.
Madison case, the outcome could and would have been completely different. The decision he made of ruling in favor of James Madison, rather than William Marbury, was absolute brilliance. Even though he disagreed with Madison and believed Marbury deserved the appointment of a justice, he still had to rule against Marbury because this was the only way to establish the principle of judicial review, one of the most important parts of the system of checks and balances. The three branches of our government would not be equal without the court having such a power. Today, it is accepted that the supreme court will evaluate the federal laws and the acts of the executive and legislative branches.
SYSTEM. The aim of this project was not to judge which legal system is better: civil law or common law. Each legal system may have some advantages and deficiencies which will discuss. If a foreign legal system has some advantages, why not merge them in the national legal system?
I argue that while Mill’s principle of utility supports freedom in the ways he claims, government interference, which Mill strongly opposes, is necessary in order for freedom of thought and expression to support Mill’s utility. In this essay, I will briefly discuss Mill’s principle of utility. Then, I will discuss Mill’s liberty principle, and outline his two main arguments in favor of freedom of speech and ideas. Next, I will explain how Mill argues that freedom of thought and expression supports his principle of utility.
The main purpose of this paper is to argue to readers that the awareness of being watched and a loss of privacy can put an end to independence and create conformity to the state and its
A constitution is a set of fundamental and entrenched rules governing the conduct of an organisation or nation, establishing its concept, character, and structure. It is usually a short document general nature and embodying the aspirations of values of its writers and subjects. (Business Dictionary, 2015). A constitution is the ultimate authority; any action, which contravenes the rules of the constitution, will be both unconstitutional and unlawful. It will also help identify the rights and freedoms of citizens through a bill of rights, which operates both to protect citizens and to restrict the power of the state.
Thomas Hobbes developed what is now known as the Social Contract Theory. This is the theory that to live in a functioning society contracts, or agreements, must be put in place to restrict the freedom of men in order to maintain peace. Although this is a political theory, Hobbes makes claims on human nature that are harsh and seemingly cynical. I will lay out an argument for why his theory seems to lack the incorporation and recognition of natural human emotions. Then, I will explain how Hobbes would counter this argument using examples from his philosophical text, Leviathan.
The Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms are composed of broad values like equality and liberty, but judges who attempt to give concrete meaning to such general concepts without specific precedent and law from the text or history overstep their proper role. If Robert H. Bork were to review judicial process today, he will assume all judges decide constitutional cases in accordance with “neutral principles.” In his article “Neutral Principles and Some First Amendment Problems” (1971), Bork insists these principles must be strictly neutral in origin of the text and from such cases that derive from precedent. He continues his argument by stating if the Court strikes down legislation on any other basis, it abuses its power and invades
He thinks that Davis should use only full documentary evidence instead of using her imagination. For example, she relies on the Coras’s book, and at the same time; on her intuition and assumption due to the silence in Coras’s text. She responds back to Finlay in her article “On the Lame” in which she notes the “difficulty in the historian’s quest for truth…” The key point here is there is no one single narrative in history, but rather many stories to be told, representing various experiences in the past, is surely foundational to the historiographical school of new history.
There exigencies vary because Warren and Brandeis aim to change the manner in which privacy is addressed in various social situations and how the judicial systems protect violations against privacy, while Solove intends to make himself distinguished and well known in the field of privacy. These authors accomplish their exigencies by choosing places of publication that allow the authors to target a specific audience, and then relate with this audience by choosing specific types of evidence which support the authors’ main claim and the exigency. In turn, this demonstrates how genre impacts the information a reader can obtain and the interpretation that the reader makes. By analyzing the motives that the author has to write a piece, readers will get a better understanding of the piece by becoming aware of biases that the author may impose. In the case of law reviews, the readers obtain a large amount of information on how laws and situations “should be” evaluated in the judicial system by examining court rulings since the author would like to give the reader a different perspective.
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.”