Anti-federalists felt as if the Constitution was a threat for the United States and it would only be the beginning of becoming a corrupt country. Amos Singletree said in his speech, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men, that talk so finely and gloss over matters so smoothly, to make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill, expect to get into Congress themselves… and get all the power and all the money…” (Doc #5) Singletree was giving his reason on why he opposed the Constitution, mentioning that most of the congress men that want to ratify the constitution that just want to take advantage of them. He meant that once the Constitution was ratified they would be robbed from their rights, have all their money taken away, and have total control of America in their hands. The anti-federalists also argued that once the Constitution went into effect, everyone's rights would not be protected. Mercy Otis Warren also opposed the Constitution saying that, “...There is no provision for a rotation nor anything else to prevent a political office from remaining in the same hands for life.” (Doc #2) Warren worried that one person ruling up to death would give him too much power and leading him to believe he is superior and eventually
I profoundly agree with Chavez as she talks about, “Repealing the birthright citizenship is a terrible idea” (596). If we as Americans take the joy and pride of people that come to this land for freedom and a new life, what make us any better than Great Britain when we first started to build this country. We settle here for a change of mind and also a change of heart. By that being the case, us trying to take away the birthright citizenship to those who wasn’t born on this soil is absolutely wrong. Firstly, when Will said ‘To end the practice of “birthright citizenship,” all that is required is to correct the misinterpretation of that amendment first sentence’ (601).
In my opinion, the judicial system is slavery just in a different form because the U.S. is making money off of them, stripping them of their humanity, and giving them no type of hope for the future. I believe the U.S. knew what they were creating when they formed these laws. Laws appear to serve the whites, wealthy, and well-educated folks instead of everyone. Furthermore, prosecutors know when they charge minors as adults it is only going to generate more recidivism and more serious offenses. Hence, preventing children from receiving student loans, jobs, and business license.
Who gets to decide whether a person gets to vote or not? The laws in America seem to be limiting the ability to vote for their future president. When you think “voting” in the United States, you think about being a citizen. To vote you must be a citizen but another big factor is you cannot vote if you are a convicted felon. A convicted felon is prohibited from voting in the states excluding two other states.
It suggests that the government, but more specifically Congress, puts gun violence above the means of fighting against it. Even more so, it shows that gun violence reins over attempts to hinder it in any way and how Congress is weak because it consistently fails to effectively do anything about gun violence in America. However, congressional gridlock can be more than Congress’ refusal to pass laws that are important The United States’ wellbeing. It can be the slow-moving process of passing a law or bill to benefit Americans. For example, immigration reform has been being considered since past President Barack Obama was reelected in 2012, as stated by The Washington Post (Nakamura, O’Keefe 4).
East Berliniers exemplified feelings of imprisonment, from being trapped and communistically controlled on their side of the wall. Unlike the west side, the east side does not represent any sense of freedom. Pathos is the appeal to emotions. Therefore, this use of pathos helps Reagan persuade Gorbachev to take down the wall because it shows that, without any wall both societies would operate as one, indicating freedom for all. The rhetorical elements, logos and pathos, included in Ronald Reagan’s speech, “ Tear Down This Wall” assist Reagan and his words to convince Gorbachev, along with the people of Berlin, that the wall between eastern and western Berlin must be dismantled.
According to Document 2, the Constitution was not secure enough. The Constitution did not have restrictions put in place in order to prevent a political office from ruling for life. The possibilities of the U.S. government transforming into a monarchy were too high, making it ideal to not ratify the Constitution. Furthermore, the Constitution posed a threat to those less wealthy. Document 5 expressed the concerns of the people, stating, “These lawyers and men of learning, and monied men … make us poor illiterate people swallow down the pill”.
In document D it says “Those who obsess about voter turnout are perhaps the ones to whom we should pay the least attention. The less legitimate politician feel, the more they try to pass laws that build around their regimes a Potemkin facade* of citizen involvement.” This quote shows that compulsory voting is bad because they are saying don’t focus on people who always vote, focus on the people who don’t and make them vote. The document shows how governments can force their citizens to vote and that governments need to earn the support of their citizens, this document could be used to argue that requiring citizens of a democracy to vote is a violation of consent of the government is
However, just the fact that the majority agreed on a law doesn’t mean that it’s just. Sometimes, refusing to obey specific laws aids democracy as it ensures that just laws are being made. Through out history, there have been many cases of people breaking the law for the better good of society. In the 1850’s, American abolitionists overlooked the Fugitive Slave Law, letting slaves run away from their Masters. Also, in 1872, Susan B. Anthony had voted before women were allowed to vote, which ignited the Women’s Rights Movement protests for voting and changed the law for the
Simply put, those who are not playing by the rules of the white rich do not deserve public assistance. He contrasts this new regime as contrasting social and criminal insecurity. He suggests that the growth of the prison industry in the United States is a political response, not to secure against rising criminal insecurity, but to combat social insecurity. This social insecurity is brought about by the, “fragmentation of wage labor and the shakeup of ethnic hierarchy” (Wacquant, 2010, p. 198). He asserts the use of workfare and prisonfare are the means for society to control the urban disorders spawned by economic deregulation and to discipline the disobedient sectors of the working
McCloy tried to argue that political donation is part of political participation which is protected by implied freedom of political communication. His argument has been rejected by all judges based on the model of representative government. because of the high risk of corruption the joint judgement argued that discrimination between property developers and general public in terms of political donation is legitimate. Despite the ICAC report on cases of corruption of property developers and the fact that the property developers directly benefit from the decisions made by government, Nettle raise the discrimination factor to argue that the restriction on property developers should be
I agree with Mr. Kristof, gun violence has been ignored enough by the government and should be one of the governments priorities. Removing guns from America is too radical and “politically impossible” with some americans, yet Kristof finds a perfect balance with introducing “universal background checks,” “limits on gun purchases,” and “more research” on how to save lives from gun violence (Kristof). I admire how Kristof’s argument finds compromise between gun control supports and negators, for removing guns from the U.S. permanently would be unconstitutional and a violation of inalienable rights. I strongly agree that America should rectify gun laws since there are a plethora of people “waiting to go boom” and are qualified to get their “hands” on unrestricted weapons. The American government would save a multitude of lives if it were attentive with gun
The people who are against immigration want it to get rid of it or they want it to be extremely limited in our country. One person who talked about how limiting immigration and stopping people from coming to the United States is a good change for us is David Goldman. In his article “President Trumps Immigration Ban is Magnificently Right” Goldman says that Trumps 90-day travel ban is “callous towards individual Muslims but merciful to American citizens, who have the right to go about their business without fear of mass terrorist attacks.” (Paragraph 3). Being against immigration because of the fear or extra crime and terrorism seems to be one of the main reasons for people in the United States to be against it. In the last election it was one of President Trumps main areas of focus.
Although some believe filibusters in the Senate can be a manipulative interpretation of the constitution, and a waste of time, they are in fact necessary to American democracy to protect the interests of American people and to open the discussion for negotiation on legislation. Filibusters in the senate protect the rights of American citizen’s by allowing a faction of people to shut down legislation they believe to be deficient. On September 24th, 2013 Ted Cruz started the second longest filibuster in American history in efforts to sway the Senate to repeal funding for The Affordable Care Act. Cruz felt as though “it is not working” and “it would be a huge burden” to the working class (Ted Cruz 2013). His filibuster was successful in shutting