Rigobero Chavarin English 10 11/08/12 What are the principles rulers of the people should follow? Thomas Jefferson defines his interpretation of the rights and freedom of the people within the Declaration of Independence; however, even if a government under those elements and Jefferson’s conception were developed, history would repeat itself, thus making the people live under the principles of Machiavelli. As Machiavelli said, there’s a difference between the way we ought to live and the way we do live. Niccolo Machiavelli would find Jefferson’s concept of ideal government absolutely useless and antagonistic towards his aspect of government, which he defines as reality. Machiavelli would find Jefferson’s skepticism of immoral justification and Tyranny within the British government as antithetical towards his belief in successful power.
The first part states, “…purely liberal and republican conceptions of civic identity are seen as frequently unsatisfying to many Americans, because they contain elements that threaten, rather than affirm, sincere, reputable beliefs in the propriety of the privileged positions that whites, Christianity, Anglo-Saxon traditions, and patriarchy have had in the United States (Smith 558).” To me, this says that true liberal ideas such as equality to its fullest extent threaten some groups within American culture. For example, many Christian groups in the United States do not support gay marriage rights because this act is contradictory to their beliefs. Rogers Smith would argue
Anti-American feeling in Pakistan is intense, while American officials are no longer able to button up over what they see as Pakistani double-dealing. Admiral Mullen was right to say that in supporting groups such as the Haqqanis “the government of Pakistan, particularly the Pakistani Army, continues to jeopardize Pakistan's opportunity to be a respected and prosperous nation with genuine regional and international influence”. But on the other hand, he knows that there can be no successful (or even partially successful) conclusion to the mission in Afghanistan unless Pakistan can be somehow persuaded to see its strategic interests differently. Admiral Mullen says that America must “reframe” its relationship with Pakistan, but resist the temptation to “disengage” from it. That is easier said than done.
His views fell between those of Clemenceau and those of Wilson. He was under huge pressure from the public to punish Germany. Yet at the same time he believed he should not punish Germany too harshly. He saw this action as disastrous for future peace, for Germany would seek revenge in the near future if the treaty was too harsh. “We want a peace which will be just, but not vindictive.
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
Marriage is the most important social institution, and it is a formality for the perpetuation of procreation; hence same sex marriage cannot meet this requirement. In other words, same sex marriage does not aid in procreation, which sustains our species. Same sex marriage will destroy our society. Some believe that although gay couples cannot produce children, they can have adopted children and fulfill a social need. That may seem like a good idea, but I am sure that there must be differences between a child who grows up in an environment with same sex couples than with regular heterosexual parents.
Relativism relies on personal and cultural norms to determine what is right and wrong. This is not a valid source of morality because what is socially acceptable is not always what is right. There was a point in time when slavery was socially acceptable but that does not make it right. Furthermore, the secular humanist is a consequentialist, which means ethical choices are judged by their results (http://www.secularhumanism.org). The result of this moral compass is an unstable platform for truth; as a result secular humanism supports gay marriage, abortion, and euthanasia.
Meanwhile, Anti-Federalist believed power should remain with the states. As you can see the Anti-Federalist was against the constitution. “New Constitution Creates a National Government, Will not Abate Foreign Influence, Dangers of Civil War and Despotism“. The main reason they revoked the constitution is bad is because it divided the powers amount the government in 3 branches (Judicial, Legislation, Executive), so NO ONE had supreme power over. Anti-Federalist didn’t approved they wanted a bill of right instead.
‘HHMM’, Hollywood, Harvard, McDonald’s, and Microsoft, were selling not only their products but also America's culture and values, the secrets of its success, to the rest of the world.' However, employing only hard power or only soft power in a given situation will usually prove inadequate. Nye utilizes the example of terrorism, arguing simply utilizing soft power resources to change the hearts and minds of the Taliban government would be ineffective and requires a hard power component. Nevertheless, in the Middle East, in the eyes of Islamic fundamentalists, the openness of Western culture is repulsive, which we have a term for it ‘anti-Americanism’. As a result, Joseph Nye, suggests that the most effective strategies in foreign policy today require a mix of hard and soft power resources, the ‘smart power’.
Many people believe that racial profiling should be prohibited because it is offensive to American values. Malkin disputes this and insists that, “…the ethnic activists and civil-liberties groups who object most strenuously to the use of racial, ethnic, religious, and nationality classifications during war support the use of similar classifications to ensure ‘diversity’ or ‘parity’ in peacetime.” (493). However, Iftikhar strongly disagrees and believes that, “the most disturbing legal trend in America has been the growing disparity in how American Muslims are treated under the law.” She explains how the reports of civil rights cases, a majority of which were Muslim hate crimes, have increased tremendously since the 9/11 attacks due to racial profiling. Many Muslims were accused of crimes they didn’t do and were treated awful. While Iftikhar understands that America is focused on keeping everyone happy and winning over people abroad, she strongly states in her piece that, “it is high time that the Bush administration try spreading a little American democracy here---while winning the hearts and minds of Americans by treating all people equally under the law.” (497).