The second amendment says “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Bill of Rights). But how could we interpret this amendment? Does this mean that we have the right to have only one gun, or we have the right to have as many guns as we want? Every right has its limitations and this right is not the exception. The first amendment says: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech…” (Bill of Rights).
It also means that members of Congress are not elected on a joint mandate as members of a prospective government, as would be the case in a parliamentary system, but to represent the interests of their districts and states, and on a separate mandate from the president. However it can be argued that this hinders the system as the president only has limited influence over Congress, and this creates the potential for gridlock and contributes to the weakening of parties. So if the president is a different party than Congress he has hardly any power which is concerning considering the president is head of state and should therefore have the most power. On the other hand it can be seen as a positive, since legislation is the product of compromise and consensus and it is therefore better founded than, for example, legislation whipped through the House of Commons. To conclude it helps the system in a way that it stops there being a dominance of one person or party which is good in a way that the parties have to find compromised and there want me dictatorship.
The court rejected Scott’s appeal, referring it to that African American doesn’t have any rights under the Constitution. The decision was positivity written down by the government explaining the power of the people and their property. The government stated that the power should not exercise others; they should not have power over the person and his property. No laws or traditions upon the relation between the slave and the master and can be overruled by the power of the government. The government had no right to take away the right of the American citizen that he or she had reserved by the Constitution.
The tenth amendment to the United States Bill of Rights states “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”(6). The United States constitution gives states the ability to shape their own constitution, barring any contradiction to the positions that the Federal Government takes on divisive issues. When state amendments don‘t align with the U.S. constitution, the Federal Government can flex their muscle to prove the power they have over states. In short, states have limited, some explicit others vague, powers over their own constitution. The U.S. constitution sets the rules and “state constitutions provide
Here, Locke is describing that man’s liberty in life is that man is not and does not have to be under any kind of rule, except that to which he gives permission. Locke is also describing that when a man consents to being ruled, the rules to which the man and the government or ruler have agreed, cannot be changed or tweaked. “When he does consent to be governed, the laws cannot go beyond what the trust placed within the government warrants.” John Locke believes that slavery can be legitimate, when the man under a rule consents to it or agrees to being ruled. When a man has committed a crime against someone or something
The 15th Amendment (1870) guarantees all the voting privileges of citizens no matter which state they reside in (although did not go far enough in guaranteeing an absolute right without condition), "the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State on the account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude." The love for the people
The colonial population was divided by ethnicity, religion, class, and status. The revolution created a new nation and a new collective body. The collective body was the American people whose members were to enjoy their freedom as citizens. The Constitution of the United States start with, “We the People,’ and describes the people who are entitled to the, “the Blessings of Liberty,” as a birthright and pass them on to “Posterity.” But not everyone who lived in the United States was included. The Constitution identifies three people who get this right: Indians, treated as members of independent tribes and not part of the American body politic; “other persons” that is, slaves; and the “people”.
However, it says nothing of the political role of the court. It does not say the Supreme Court has the power to declare legislation or the executive action as unconstitutional; this power over the federal and state legislation has turned the court from being a solely judicial body to a body
It keeps the country from being over run by minorities; America will still keep its race’s face. An immigration bill directly affects the journey to attaining the “American Dream”. The American Dream should be able to be attained by everyone who seeks it. The thing is it can be attained by
Therefore, these are rights that can’t be taken away or unalienable, unalienable rights are rights that are unable to be alienated, given up, or transferred to someone else. They come from God, and no man or government can rightly give them or take them away. Some examples of unalienable rights are life; liberty; self-government; to bear arms; to purchase, develop and dispose of property; make personal choices; free conscience; choice of profession; choice of a mate; to assemble; to petition; and to free speech. Lastly, even with times passing and things changing, we have to remember that we the people are the authority in America. We have to educate ourselves for the sake of progress while still reminding ourselves that our Constitution is