Gun control is the issue on whether we should put more restrictions on gun laws or keep them the same. Personally, the gun laws in our state are fine and do not need to be changed. Even if we were to add more laws while it would only serve to make obtaining a gun even harder than it already is and would have no effect on illegal trade. Criminals would continue to smuggle and trade illegal guns regardless of the laws to be or already in place. Therefore putting down more laws wouldn’t make a difference as Illegal trading would continue to take place, as American citizens we have the right to bear arms according to the second amendment, any new laws would make getting a gun harder for someone who could use it as protection.
Rumsfeld the Supreme Court addressed the issue of citizens being held as enemy combatant, and being denied Habeas Corpus. The court ruled that a citizen being held as an enemy combatant is entitled to due process and an opportunity to contest the facts of his detention (James, 2005). James agreed that the court had correctly reasoned that the President did have the authority to detain both citizens and non citizens indefinitely as enemy combatants, after it has been established that the individual is actually an enemy combatant. However, he feels that the opinion did not go far enough in defining the term enemy combatant, and will not be adequate in instructing the lower courts in future cases (James,
To further enforce this law would only be a waste of effort and “more dangerous” to those who are actually doing the enforcing. I think the second premiss is completely credible; “society” will not stop the use of marijuana if there are new laws passed stating the use of marijuana is prohibited. Therefore the conclusion that states “severe laws against marijuana are more dangerous to society than the activity which they are designed to prevent” is plausible due to the fact of reality that on a regular basis people don’t obey these laws. Getting in trouble with the law is more dangerous to society than just taking marijuana as an activity. For this particular argument it would have to be “Circular Reasoning”, it’s a fallacy that in which the premises include the claim that the conclusion is true or (directly or indirectly) assume that the conclusion is true.
Gun Violence Essay I believe if the government started banning guns and other weapons it would not limit gun violence. Just trying to ban a weapon or guns, wouldn’t stop the person from trying to commit the crime he or she is wanting to commit. I believe the only way they could reduce it is if they actually go door to door to every house in the United States and take every gun that that person has, and that still wouldn’t be enough. People will eventually find out that that’s what the government is doing and most likely try to hide their weapons if they wanted to keep them that bad. That’s why I think it would only reduce gun violence, not make it go away completely.
Batman should not kill the Joker and we should not be torturing our enemies to get information out of them. Who are we to decide what is best for “the greater good” if Batman kills the Joker he would be no better than him, and if we torture our enemies we would be no better than them, and the values in which our country was founded on would have gone to
In the definition above, being ethical or unethical is in the eyes of the country. If the country doesn’t view this as an issue then neither should Frank. However, in the United States, this bribery would be considered unethical because of the morals that the U.S. stands on. Even though this may be ethical in Latin, bribery is still considered to be illegal when it comes to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 2 - Are Frank’s two different payments legal under the Foreign
Likening such statements to fraud, defamation, or lies to government agencies, all of which can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment, the dissenters argued that the government should have a free hand to prosecute those who lie about having earned military honors. The dissenters recognized that false statements may be protected when laws restricting them might chill otherwise protected speech, but argued that the Stolen Valor Act does not implicate that concern because the subject matter of the lies does not relate to any protected
David Gray CJUS 200 Application Essay 2-15-14 Can you seize the marijuana plants at that time? If yes, what is your legal justification for doing so? If no, what legally prohibits you from doing so? No, as a police officer you would not be able to seize the marijuana plants at this time, by doing so you would be violating the rights of the citizens of the house that was entered due to the noise ordinance. Actually, the fourth amendment would actually keep you from doing so because it states that “every citizen right to be free from unreasonable government intrusion into their persons, homes, businesses, and property –whether through police stops of citizens on the street, arrests, or searches of homes and businesses”.
So who’s really the victim? In fact, the real problem is we are not looking at the entire situation. Instead we decide to just put forth our opinions and feelings about immigration without really taking into consideration what would the United States be without it. As a part of my study on this controversy I read two articles: US Immigration Support org (UIS). “Illegal Immigration from Mexico,” and “Mexican Immigration to the U.S: the latest estimates,” by Jeffrey Passel.
Backers say illegal immigration has created public safety and economic crises. At issue is whether states have any authority to step in to enforce immigration matters or whether that is the exclusive role of the federal government. In dry legal terms, this constitutional question is known as pre-emption. Other states watch for outcome Paul Clement, lawyer for Arizona, told the high court the federal government has long failed to control the problem, and that states have discretion to assist in enforcing immigration laws. But the Obama administration's solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, strongly countered that assertion, saying immigration matters are under the federal government's exclusive authority and state "interference" would only make matters worse.