King and Gandhi saw the laws that where passed against their people as unjust laws because they only affected the minority rather than the majority. King showed an example how laws are not always just by saying that “everything that Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything that Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was “illegal”. He was trying to show how even the government made the law legal it was still unjust as a moral law and civil disobedience would have been justified as the right thing to do. Gandhi just like King felt that not everything that was legal was
Both classes had disagreements with the Articles of Confederation. Federalists say that the articles were weak and ineffective because the state governments was too weak to apply laws and ordered for a national government instead. We Anti-federalists however believed that the Articles of Confederation was a good plan and that there should not be a government more powerful than the state governments. Believing that state governments should have more power compared to the national government was one of the big reasons why the anti-federalists supported the Articles of Confederation. How about the U.S constitution, what factors were held to point out?
As James Madison stated, “whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial consideration.”[viii] They understood that the unruly masses responsible for the Boston Tea Party could spark a revolution[ix], however the frenzied approach would not serve well as a functional government. They understood that “democratic governing is not the same as democratic discourse”[x]. Boucher was correct, absolute democracy is not practical. This is why a representative democracy, where all voices are heard, but where decisions are made rationally, reflecting the views of the general public, is a logical solution for a functional government representing the will of the people. A representative democracy is a form of democracy whose foundation is built on common sense.
Waller (2006) suggests that it is highly unlikely that evil actions such as genocide are the inevitable product of personality or dispositional qualities. It is possible that a situational perspective can provide an explanation of the accumulation of factors- albeit preventable- that lead to such brutal acts. Zimbardo (1972) supports this idea of social influence: “Individual behaviour is largely under the control of social forces and environmental contingencies rather than personality traits, character, will power or other empirically unvalidated constructs” (Zimbardo, 1972, p. 6). The tendency to commit or allow genocide may result from the unification of role and person. This merger may become apparent where external behaviours and roles are internalised.
He has written a book titled Freedom on Fire where in one chapter he discusses why the United States Failed to Act in Rwanda. One of his main reasons is that Somalia had soured the taste for intervening in African countries. After the Somalia debacle, people in Washington began to point fingers at everyone but themselves. Congress blamed the United Nations and the executive branch as well. Shattuck believes that since President Clinton handled the draft issue and the issue of gays in the military poorly the Pentagon was not holding Clinton in high respects.
However, this view is criticised as damage to the environment is not contained with human-defined nation boundaries, which can be seen in Item A by “Environmental damage does not respect national borders”. An act committed in one country could have severe effects for all neighbouring countries, or the whole world. Therefore, it can be argued that simply observing laws is not useful in understanding green crime. One example of this is the South East Asian Haze, a layer of smog, caused by slash-and-burn farming, that has appeared several times (most notably in 1997 and 2013). The source of the smog and subsequent air pollution was a single island in Indonesia, yet several surrounding countries, many of which have strict legislation against slash-and-burn, faced severe consequences.
“To be one’s self, and unafraid whether right or wrong, is more admirable than the easy cowardice of surrender to conformity” said American author Irving Wallace. This quote is stating that being an individual is better than following everyone else. The Book Thief and Fahrenheit 451 together share the theme regarding individuality versus conformity. The societies in both books are very different then how we live today. People are not speaking up for themselves and for what they think is right.
Judging a Book by its Cover “In Defense of Prejudice”, the author Jonathan Rauch, indicates that it is foolish to believe eradicating racism and other forms of prejudice is possible. The article describes the war on prejudice as the “most uncontroversial social movement in America”. Universities, work places, newsrooms and Capitol Hill have declared anti-discriminatory policies in an attempt to eradicate prejudices. The majority of society believes that the elimination of prejudices will make society fair and safer for the minorities. Jonathan Rauch declares himself as not racist in spite of the fact that he is a strong believer in not eradicating prejudices.
From a realist, liberal, and identity perspective, if this issue was left uncheck then states could be overwhelmed with immigrants and not know what to do with all of them. From a realist point of view, if NGOS and IGOs left this issue unchecked, the organizations would act accordingly to what they personally want. As for individuals, the immigrants could pretty much do whatever they want. From a liberal point of view, if NGOs and IGOs left this issue unchecked, the consequences could less than average products traded or swapped. As a result, better outcomes may become more and more hard to come by.
Both Presidents appear to have been wrongly impeached. Johnson was attempting to prove a point that the Tenure of Office Act was unconstitutional and should be repealed. On the other hand, President Clinton’s impeachment appeared to be about rivalry. The Clinton trial was heavily inconsistent; “facts” were tainted by political bias and the charge did not meet any of the constitutional standards to cause impeachment nor removal. Although Clinton’s scandal was unprofessional, it was not a great enough cause for impeachment.