After the United States had found out they steered clear of future wars and to remain neutral, by avoiding financial deals with countries at war. I feel they made the right choice to go neutral and avoiding all countries at war. I feel that it was cruel of the other country to do that to the United States because now they have to live in isolation from countries at war and don’t get a say in the matter. But I also see why the government signed the Neutrality Act into law, because it was for the safety of the citizens and their
The transcript was interesting, it talked about how Thomas Jefferson wanted to live in an independant nation by switching the word “subjects” to the word citizens while writing the declaration of independence. This is related to the purpose of the government because he does not want the government to treat Americans like “subject”, he wants to treat them more like US citizens. In all of these documents they all say the same thing, they all express the same beliefs of an independent nation and how they would do it. In all of these documents they talk about similar ideas involving independence, but their solutions of becoming an independent nation are different. The Declaration of Independence and the transcript are different from Patrick Henry 's speech because Patrick Henry wants to have a war and fight without any peace, while the other two explain their thoughts in a more peaceful
He favored representative government and a rule of law. He denounced tyranny. He insisted that when government violates individual rights, people may legitimately rebel” (Powell 2). He believed that the government was created for the people and not just the monarchy and if the government fails it’s up to the people to ‘fix’ it. He influenced many people and philosophers, including Thomas Paine and Thomas
This statement is trying to persuade the President to think highly of him even though he is disagreeing with the other speakers, thus it is a pathos argument. Henry also tries to convince the President that if he doesn’t act now, he may not succeed in getting liberty by writing: “Mr. President, it is natural
As a matter of fact, this revolution had been in the works for many years. Slowly but surely, a general resentment of and eventual anger towards England steadily grew among the colonists. Once Britain began to crack down and heavily enforce the Navigation Acts and other similar laws, Americans decided they had had enough. In 1776, prominent revolutionaries convened in a Continental Congress. Among the names present at the Continental Congress, which eventually passed the Declaration of Independence, were such legends as George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson, to name a handful.
Going Against The Government Ronald Reagan once said, “Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.” This quote says that the government is put in place to protect it’s people not to interfere and run their lives. With this quote Reagan is stating that the government does not have the right to take control of our lives. Many people often contemplate whether it is appropriate to go against the government or not. One should be able to voice their opinions and not be afraid. Therefore, it is appropriate to go against the government.
Although the leaders of the country are right to hide information on the basis of ensuring the safety of the citizens, there is information they keep stowed away in order to prevent an uproarious rebellion. Such a dramatic response could lead to a possibly dangerous shift in power, and the fall of the entire democracy. The American government is trying to protect its people, but in reality, it is only evoking a defiant response with detrimental consequences. The idea that one’s private information must be secure at all costs has swept the globe and has inspired a hysteria of ludicrous terror, according to writer David Plotz in his essay “Privacy in Overrated”. Yet, there are valid reasons on why such a terror is not absurd, but practical.
It is a quote from Alexis de Tocqueville’s “Democracy in America”. His point of view is very clear on the fact that once a person gives up their liberty for comfort and security to a government the whole thing needs to be revised. One shouldn’t trade anything to the government in exchange for anything. In this type of system , citizens “ leave their dependence for a moment to indicate their master, and then reenter it” meaning that it is a vicious circle, even though civilians think they are being given a choice, it doesn’t really turn out to be a choice in the end because compromises have to be made (Festenstein Kenny P 77). People who are very eager to trade off liberty for comforts, only as long as they can deliver it to their people in the end.
“If freedom of opinion, in the sense we understand it, is the right of every citizen, by what mode of reasoning can that right be denied to an assemblage of Citizens? (Foner 144). In this quote stated by the Democratic-Republican Society of Pennsylvania says that freedom of opinion should not be denied to citizens. Public opinion is important in a democracy because the people are the ultimate source of power. Therefore, any governmental official has to take public opinion into account, but it does not mean that they always do what people want.
Granted, it was created to help protect American lives from extremists looking to inflict harm on innocent lives it should still not take away the rights of the majority when trying to hunt for a minority. Not all Americans are out looking to cause domestic terrorism, so the government should not be looking at them in such a manner. Madison and Jefferson could not have predicted such an action as 9/11 perpetrated on American soil, but they were right when they established that the majority should rule and minorities should be protected. In modern times it seems as though the script may have been flipped, and the majority could be considered to be the one being