The Market As Prison By Lindblom Summary

He begins by trying to encourage the people to see that the constitution will take away what they have fought so hard for. He continues by giving the reasons as to why the people should question the constitution. He mainly points out that there is a reason the Constitutional Convention was held in secrecy and that the people should recognize and be unsettled about this. Another reason he has no faith in the constitution and suggests that the people should not either is because they want it ratified quickly. He believes this is because they do not want the people to look over the constitution too thoroughly and find flaws or areas that will take away from the people having control.

I think that politicians should stick to their own personal morals for most of the time. I don’t expect every politican to never stick to at least one important moral issure, and switch just becaset he public all doesn’t agree with him or her. I think it is important for someone to have strong integrity and lidten to their own moral compass but overall tell the honest truth. As a young person in america I understand that not evryhting every politicnas says is the truth, in fact I understand that some officals lie. But for a person who wants to be an elceted officla, in any office, I think they ned to tell the truth and listen to the public, but at the same time have strong good

Who should be protected by the bill of Rights? The Bill of Rights is to protect U.S. citizens from the misuse of power that may be committed by the government in different areas. It clearly restrict the three branches of government laid out in the Constitution. In The Bill of Rights, Reprinted from New York University Law Review, Hugo Black states that “The bill of rights protects people by clearly stating what government can’t do by describing ‘the procedures that government must follow when bringing its powers to bear against any person with a view to depriving him of his life, liberty, or property (Black 1960).’” The first 10 amendment either says what the government cannot do or limits its powers by providing undeniable procedures that it must

The government is contradicting its policies because it wants to keep them out, but at the same time it helps them out when they get here illegally or legally. This is a tug of war. As said by Chomsky, constitutional laws are made by human beings, we should devise a better constitution if there is any loophole that against the values of fairness and equality in our social

He says "The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves- in their separate, and individual capacities." Throughout the quote, he is saying that the government isn 't meant to help its citizens maintain peace and establish justice. The reality is, is that the government plays a huge role in making our everyday lives better, which is why we are not at war everyday with another country or settling a feud between states. This furthermore supports Jefferson 's claim that a government is established to ensure peace and protect its citizens rights. Like Jefferson said, the purpose of the American government is to keep its citizens safe and to protect our pursuit of happiness among other unalienable rights.

“Whenever the people are well informed they ca be trusted with their own government; whenever things get so far wrong as to attract their notes, they may by relied on to set them to rights” (Jefferson 1789). Thomas Jefferson believed that people should be able to run their own government and to just let nature rule. He trusts that all people wanted to be good and would be good if they were left alone. Thought that if a person messed up people should just work it out among themselves and the government should stay out of it. Jefferson thought that people would be better off without a government ruling over them.

The constitution of the United States is an insightful and revolutionary idea of how a government should be practiced in order to prevent a greedy, corrupt form of government from establishing and taking over its people. The US government is founded on the principle that it works for its people, meaning that whatever is legislated is meant only for the benefit of the American people. However, the Constitution is at this point flawed due to the fact that many of its proclamations are vague and outdated, and has to be left to interpretation as to what the framers truly intended of it. This is dangerous because it further divides the nation when Americans believe in different forms of what is constitutionally righteous, and this may start a civil

The people are giving up some of their right so the government will protect them. The first amendment is “freedom of speech, religion, press, assembly and petition” The first amendment is similar to the social contract because in a way the government is promising to protect you in exchange for some of your rights. But if you think about it your free speech is limited, you can’t just say whatever you desire like shouting out “there’s a bomb” in a crowded place that’s illegal because safety is major.

Opponents of Carlin 's legendary act stated that the Supreme Court 's ruling was needed in order to protect social values, despite the “decay of human decency” as George called it. Patrick Trueman, CEO and president of Morality in Media, which is the same group that reported WBAI to the FCC for airing Carlin’s 7 dirty words routine, stated, "The ruling in Pacifica was an important one for people who want to uphold the standard of decency in society. If the FCC was vigilant, you wouldn 't see the networks pushing the envelope, but they do because they aren 't interested in upholding standards of decency and are only interested in making money and competing with cable TV. You get to this point where the FCC has not done its job adequately and

Would it be alright for the government to infringe these rights to protect us as citizens? There are two sides to this coin, on the first we have the violation of this right set down to protect us. On the other, we have the government’s interest of public safety. Our forefathers had predicted this type of issue. Another founding father, Benjamin Franklin said, “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” I believe if we let the government encroach on these rights we will not get them back.

Civil liberties are rights guaranteed to citizens in the Constitution that the government cannot interfere with, however, in the name of national security, they do. The government sometimes finds it necessary for Americans to give up some of their basic rights to keep the nation protected, but many people find this unnecessary. A law-abiding citizen’s extremely personal information should not be essential to finding terroristic threats within this society. Under no circumstances should an American citizen’s civil liberties be violated in a time of war or crisis, because those are assured rights that are most valuable to their freedom during national conflicts. The government is stealing bits of the people 's power in order to increase theirs,