However they do have the ability to make suggestions to possibly amend the law through highlighting flaws. The judiciary cannot make judgments past the jurisdiction of the law even in interests of natural justice. A strong example of this was the Belmarsh Case, where judges believed the system of holding foreigners against the will under the anti-terrorism act contradicted with human rights. This law was subsequently changed. This could pose some doubt as to the judges power, as although they can not officially change laws, they clearly have the power to suggest changes with ease, and some could argue that despite Lord Neuberger’s claims, they do indeed undermine parliamentary sovereignty through their suggestion of changes.
Even in “free” countries like the United States there is still corruption, or “plunder” as Bastiat would say, that put limitations on citizen’s natural freedoms. Bastiat claims “We hold from God the gift which, as far as we are concerned, contains all others, Life-physical, intellectual, and moral life (Bastiat 5).” These are rights that Basiat believes is only what the government should protect. Once those rights are protected, however, it is up to the people to keep their government accountable for perversions in laws that would essentially limit them to their natural rights in any way. His explanations of various situations of bad government laws paint a picture of what has gone on in history and still goes on today. The first point that Bastiat highlighted in the book was “If every man has the right of defending, even by force, his person, his liberty, and his property, a number of men have the right to combine together, to extend, to organize a common force, to provide regularly for this defense (Bastiat 6).” This made me think that Bastiat was basically approving the American Revolution and suggesting that other countries in Europe at this point in history have the right to be revolutionizing their governments the
They were not inventing anything new but reclaiming something ancient. This is why governments tend to fall apart, because people often want to come together freely and be themselves, rather then fit a mold that is presented for them. Hobbes foretold that it was a human condition that war fought by each against each, making it hard for anything good to come out of it, or learn
In short, many of the legal safeguards American citizens enjoy under our constitution would not be guaranteed under the ICC. An issue with effective evidence for defense is also a problem with the ICC. Proff. Alfred Rubin of Tuffs University explains: "documents and testimony needed for an effective defense are hard to expose, there is no reason to expect the Bosnian Serbs to publish their internal records, or that the Serbian Serbs would want them". Diminished sovereignty Proponents for the ICC also argue the court is meant to compliment the states own criminal justice system, and is
With the defendant they get a shot at leniency from the judge. Then there are some that say plea bargaining is unconstitutional. “Plea bargaining rests on the constitutional fiction that our government does not retaliate against individuals who wish to exercise their right to trial by jury.” (Lynch, The Case Against Plea Bargaining, 2003). essentially this means if the defendant believes in their innocence and want to go to trial the will be punished for standing up for their constitutional rights. It is my belief that plea bargaining is an utter necessity, and though it may not seem just at all times; we as a society can see how hectic the court would be if all cases were brought to trial.
Recent activity in the Bush administration has led to widespread criticism on how the government perceives torture. Torture is a word that carries negative connotation in nearly every part of its usage. Alan Dershowitz states in his article, “Is There a Torturous Road to Justice?” that if the government is going to practice such methods of interrogation, they should not hide it from the public, but rather make it legal in a way that allows for the protection of our nation. His stance on the subject is made clear by his introduction of various solutions to the problem and tries to convince his audience of their power. He focuses on interpretations of the constitution and assumes that torture will happen regardless of what the government says.
In the vigilantism cases, although we could all relate to the frustration involved for the actors, we all agree that one must stay within the bounds of the law to seek out justice. The next discussion involved civil disobedience and we found that we agreed that civil disobedience has been helpful historically to help change the laws and improve our society. However, the general consensus on civil disobedience was also that the acts of disobedience must be done in a peaceful manner for the acts to be effective. The final acts of crimes among professionals had another anonymous decision. Our team found that we did not agree with those professionals who chose to commit crimes.
These arguments, although they do not specifically state to physically riot against authority, become enabling factors by which the population should rebel. To begin with, Paine argues that the population of each individual colony would be subjected to better living should they be responsible for their own governing laws. Rather than follow the set rules of the British monarchy, Paine suggests the citizens should “establish a common interest with every part of the community, [and] they will mutually and naturally support each other.” (Paine, 49) Next, he argues that the British monarchy is very complex, contradictory, and unfair to its citizens. For instance, Paine notes that the monarchy “first excludes a man from the means of information, yet empowers him to act in cases where the highest judgment is required.” (Paine, 50) The contradictory case does not just end here, it is also witnessed in the fact that the monarchy continues through the act of hereditary succession – whereby the King’s descendent automatically becomes heir to the throne. He
The fact that these two events occurred twice, not at the same time, but one after another, is an example of how the protection of human rights is a universal problem. Sometimes it is not enough to have laws, you must enforce them as well. It only takes one rule breaker to set off a chain reaction and cause others to follow behind them, the UDHR is no exception. This is what happens with events like genocides. Ignoring it only worsens the problem.
Do we still need to be alert in our pursuit of a more reasonable society? Well the supposedly civilian government has introduced reforms aiming for increased democratization and development, but the challenges are huge in a country characterized by serious and extensive human rights abuses. The international community has welcomed the changes and suspended most supports. Ongoing conflicts, weak institutions and corruption add to the risks. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial agreement and a color-blind society.