Let America Be What Could Be America has never had a definite shape or form in regards to its identity, if ever it had one it was merely a construct. The American values that are constantly contradicts the realities of today. The overly patriotic America is too arrogant to willingly specify its imperfections and remedy them. In Langston Hughes’ “Let America be America Again”, Hughes exposes America’s flaws; he sheds light on the dark America that is of today regarding inequality, racism, and other injustices.
The American dream is having equality, a voice to be heard and stability in one’s life. However, the American Dream is just that, a dream. It cannot be attained because of the power of our government, the ignorant minds of others and the constant want for more. What should be trivial factors in life, such as: race, gender, social class, wealth, etc., all have a significant effect on the impractical American dream. the “TED Talks” video proves this.
Keith Albow spoke on the risks of the public from repeated sex offenders and in this interview Dr. Albow talked on the use of Chemical Castration to sex offenders and how this actual process underwent, whether is type of punishment would help in lowering the percentage of sex crimes in the United States or is it just a cruel way of punishing the individual by taking his manhood making him feel less of a man. When the whole time the public is looking to ways of punishing the offender with prison time and then enforcing them to treatment for this illness/disorder. (1) The questions that is still unanswered “will this chemical castration work, and will the sex offender continue the treatment once released back to the public?” And then earlier the circumstances where if the sex offender meet the criteria? Are there only certain offenders or depending on what type of sex crime, child molestation, sex abuse, rape, which one?
We have it to say very controversial things." (Dailypaul.com.) The issue isn’t about whether racism is good or bad, but whether the government has a legitimate role in intruding into and censoring free speech. It is perfectly appropriate to support the repeal of 18C without directly endorsing racism. Not everything that is considered morally abhorrent by society is criminalised by the government.
America’s aversion to anyone who differs from this ideal has sparked the intense nativism that denies immigrants opportunities that the American Dream is a symbol of. If the American Dream means that everyone has an equal chance in the United States, then it can no longer exist if not everyone is allowed into the United States. Unfairly limiting a single group’s opportunity for success is antithetical to what the American Dream
Some believe that is his action was like patriotic whistleblower he would have pursued any legal action to stop NSA. Such as he could have gone to Congress or court to get the justification or accountabilities of the security agencies surveillances rather contact straightforwardly with the foreign journalist and news officials then load them with all stolen evidence, also let them decide whether they keep them secret or not . He might have an argument on the nobility of his work but apparently, he was careless as this crucial legal issue became a product to promote the foreign news media which cannot be considered as protecting national security . Furthermore, the US alliance with overseas relation became questionable as the document includes unwanted access to other nations security. Highly likely, the news of foreign spying issue is considered as hazardous overall which created more harm than good for our nation.
United States deals with the second scenario and the government’s ability to prosecute leaders of well-organized political parties. The Court also developed new legal tests to measure the risk speech causing harm; the risk formula approach. The risk formula approach questions whether the gravity of the evil justifies the invasion of free speech in order to avoid danger. In Dennis v. Unites States, the Court found that the Secretary of the Communist party in the United States did not have First Amendment protections of free speech, assembly and publication of their political doctrines. Chief Justice Vinson stated in the Court’s decision that Dennis violated the Smith Act, for advocating the overthrowing of the U.S. government.
This is due to the inalienable nature of rights that Americans believed they were born with, such as the right to property. Due to this, the Federalist movement could not be argued to pursue a liberal agenda as their aim was to remove the dominance of state sovereignty and instead, install an elected national government. I would argue that it is a stretch to suggest that the Federalists feared the power of the state legislators, but rather they chose to not underestimate its role. The creation of political conventions where the common man voted, sought to sidestep any potential resistance that the states could have applied. By choosing to create an entirely new political structure in the form of the national conventions, the Republicans were being proactive in their strategy of eliminating the opposition, rather than reacting to their fear of the state legislators.
Since the information printed by the New York Times was not accurate toward the public official, the Court understood that free speech should be given more latitude before it was considered libel. Justice Brennan further added that the standard for what is considered malice for public officials “must prove the falsity of the statement and malicious intent,” and a reckless disregard for the truth. With this decision the Court opened the door to have more freedom of expression on debate over public issues. Justice Brennan and the Court understood that the censoring of this type of speech my “chill speech” and hinder the public from speaking freely against public officials. In addition, libel and slander of private citizens must
Still, there are differing opinions in politics on what qualifies as hate speech and where the line should be drawn to upkeep the well-being of other while allowing them to express their opinions freely. In a debate between Julia O’Reilly and Ross Walsh, two notable political minds in American politics, Julia O’Reilly argues: “free[dom] [of] speech does not equal speech free from consequences. When you utilise your right to freedom of speech you implicitly agree that the results of that speech are your responsibility, whether they are positive or negative, and you should be held accountable for them.” (REBUTTAL (Against) – Ross Walsh) The freedom that comes from expression does not erase the responsibility that comes with the consequences
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
Question two As the chairman for the Republican National Convention and knowing that Buckley V Valeo decision will not be soon changed, I would argue against changing the current campaign system in the most spectacular way. I would get on air and frame as the case as the liberal media trying to suppress free speech. I would attack the media on its double standards and vendetta against businesses. The press demands to know the inner working of institutions, yet it hardly respects other people’s right to assemble nor does it promote candidates that reflect the views of people whom want to make America great.
There was a clear lesson here: immigration regulation is a matter for the federal government. Any attempt to regulate immigration laws where Congress had already regulated it even interrelated efforts, are unconstitutional. In later cases, the Court made it distinct that there is opportunity for state and local participation in the regulation of the lives of immigrants, although not inevitably in the regulation and enforcement of laws governing the movement of immigration itself. In the case of DeCanas v. Bica (1976), the question that the Court was given was whether a California law that established sanctions on business owners who hired non-citizens unofficial to work in the United States violate on federal immigration powers. The Court disapproved
Medina, Jr. represented Life magazine. Medina asserted that the privacy law in New York was unconstitutional because it is too broad and corrective. Medina also argued that the prior ruling in the case was unsuitable because the jury was allowed to conclude liability of Life based on the inaccuracy of the article, while neglecting to take into account whether or not the act by the magazine was reckless or willful. Nixon argued that a fictional account is not newsworthy and the privacy law does not impact freedom of the press. He put forth that the “fictionalization” aspect of privacy law did not harm freedom of expression.
To emphasize, the Second Amendment is a American citizens right, but this privilege can be taken away if one does not abide by the laws of American society. Therefore, the Second Amendment is of great controversy in America. The federal government should not have a say about the second amendment; just uphold the law. In the event, the federal government may set Categorical Grants on gun laws for states, will we as Americans lose our Second Amendment rights, this is what many citizens in American society are concerned about. Coupled with, sometimes it is not about who is right, it is about what is best for the greater good of American citizens.