Sparta disallowed travelling and this has no purpose whatsoever. In document D it says,”It was not allowed for them to go abroad, so they should have nothing to do with foreign ways and undisciplined modes of living.” This is an extraordinarily weak law. That’s because Sparta couldn’t acquire knowledge from others and they couldn’t trade. Since Sparta didn’t allow travelling they couldn’t trade knowledge with other Greek city-states and this could’ve been very valuable to Sparta. This proves that Sparta is stuck up; and being stuck up is an ignorant thing to be.
As it was not made official at the time, the Southern states were not at wrong for seceding from the union. Under the constitution, states had the right to use any power not directly delegated to the government. The act of secession was lawful under Amendment 10. Southern states had no say in a government which they believed was not fit to serve them. They had every right to leave the union and make their own government according to the Declaration of Independence, and if they had no say in government, they had no rights in that country.
Numerous people argue that the articles of confederation were weak and unsuitable for the United States, but there are multiple advantages to this document. Such as having no single leader to rule over them and tell them what to do, each state had one vote in the congress, and the congress could settle in and deal with the western lands. The Articles of confederation could have been strong and suitable for the United States because it protected the states from earlier tyranny that they had experienced due to the British King George lll, and promised to prevent any tyrannical rule of the British. The articles of confederation also allowed each state one vote, regardless of the number of delegates each had, the size of their state, or the
The Privileges and Immunities Clauses are found in Article IV of the U.S. Constitution and the Fourteenth Amendment. Both clauses apply only to citizens of the United States. Aliens and corporations are not citizens and, therefore, are not entitled to this protection. These clauses have proven to be of little import because other constitutional provisions have been used to settle controversies. In large part the insignificance of the clauses has been based on restrictive readings of the clauses by the U.S. Supreme Court.
For example, the First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law establishing ‘religion’. Meaning, they cannot create a national church or declare that Christianity, Islam, or Hinduism as the official religion of the United States of America. While procedural liberties are limits on how the government can act. For example, in America, in courtroom drama’s, there is a presumption that someone is innocent until proven guilty. This presumption means, in criminal cases, jury’s and judges have to act as those the accused is innocent until the prosecution conviences them otherwise.
The first amendment may seem like something that is generally understood among all of those who use it, but this may not be the case. While most citizens of the United States of America would certainly say that they understand and can comprehend what the first amendment means, an underlying lack of knowledge, upon what is presumed to be the most important of all the amendments, can still be discovered. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The specific piece of the first amendment that is particularly important
In Saudi Arabia, “it is illegal to publicly practice any faith other than the state’s official religion Sunni Islam. Members of other faiths can worship privately, but non-Muslim houses of worship may not be built” (Index). The abandonment, rejection, or blasphemy against Sunni Islam can be punished by death. While it is often taken for granted, the United States allows a person to participate in any religion that he may choose. In Orwell’s 1984, there is no religion.
Social equality advocates had likewise required the end of escape clauses for national security and outskirt implementation, which the DOJ did not embrace. The record states: This Guidance does not matter to Federal non-law implementation work force, including U.S. military, knowledge, or political faculty, and their exercises. Moreover, this Guidance does not have any significant bearing to ban exercises in the region of the fringe, or to defensive, review, or screening exercises. The DOJ approach, in any case, is far clearer and more grounded than strategies held by numerous states and areas. As the NAACP discovered, a few states and areas boycott the utilization of pretextual movement stops, others unequivocally restrict racial profiling, and still others require obligatory information accumulation — yet few contain the majority of the components of a powerful racial profiling boycott, and numerous states need profiling laws through and through.
In today’s society we as American citizens hold our freedoms very highly, particularly the 1st Amendment i.e. the freedom of speech. The 1st Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Although obscenity, profanity, and slander for example, is not protected, the 1st Amendment however not protect someone from impersonating a public servant, but for some reason protects an individual from impersonating a member of the military, under the guise of freedom of speech. In this paper I will discuss my reasoning as to why impersonating a member of the brave men and women in the military should be a more heinous, criminal offense.
States could simply ignore certain laws without any repercussions. Citizens also lacked the ability to file cases against the national government, because there was no court system in place for a lawsuit. One major difference in the Articles of Confederation and its successor-The Constitution of the United States-was its lack of a chief executive. Without a chief executive the United States was left without a presidential figure to handle foreign affairs. The United States even received complaints from nations such as Britain, because they lacked the knowledge of whom to contact in order to initiate diplomacy.
the facts state that they were in need for a new federal government system. For seven years, the government did not have any Executive Branch. This means that the government could not even implement, enforce, or apply laws. Having no Executive Branch is faulty enough, therefore, no National Court System is even sorrier.