DBQ: The Alien and Sedition Acts "Although the Alien and Sedition Acts, created in 1798, spurred great dispute, they were created under constitutional guidelines. The acts helped to protect the government of the United States from potential threat." Using the documents and your knowledge of the period, evaluate this statement. Document A Source: Thomas Jefferson, Draft of Kentucky Resolutions, 1798. Although Congress passed for bills known as the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798 intending to help protect the government of the united states from potential threats, they did not truly protect Americans from their foreign enemies.
This injustice took place in 1866; after a decade of injustice behaviors that the Chinese Americans received in all places such as being banned from certain jobs and the Anti – Chinese law in the state constitution of 1877, which took place after this case. In the preamble it says “we the people” and if they meant it then anyone should be able to testify in court. Also it states that “we the people,” “will secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves.” This that we promote justice; if that was true then it wouldn’t matter what culture we were because we are all Americans and justice would have been served to the criminal in the case. In the world of the Chinese Americans’ no rules apply, they are treated in a way that is not acceptable to the American lifestyle. They were not treated equally by the federal government or society and all three of these cases have shown the injustices and trials that the Chinese Americans have suffered.
Although the European sent a steady supply of ships to trade with China, how did the Chinese respond to Western trade? P.518 They did not like them, and banned the Portuguese. 11. How were the Portuguese, the first Europeans to arrive in East Asia, received by the Chinese? P.518 They were banished.
A.P. Smith Mfg. Co. v. Barlow Facts: The plaintiff corporation was attempting to donate $1,500 to Princeton University. However, the stockholders were against this decision, and P instituted a declaratory judgment action. The stockholder’s argued: (1) the plaintiff’s certificate of incorporation does not expressly authorize the contribution, and under common-law principles the company does not possess any implied or incidental power to make it, and (2) the New Jersey statutes which expressly authorize the contribution may not constitutionally be applied to the plaintiff, a corporation created long before their enactment.
In Clayman vs Obama, Judge Richard echoed that surveillance and collection of telephony data by NSA without the knowledge of the general public was against the spirit of the constitution of America. He said that the right to privacy is a right that needs to be guaranteed by the state. The right should not be taken away from the persons by the state. In another ruling ten days after the first one, J. William in ACLU vs Clapper arrived at a diametrically opposite decision with a different reasoning. The judge appreciated the right to privacy as envisioned under the constitution but argued that the value of intelligence outweighed the right.
Two-thirds of the Japanese were American citizens. Their only crime was that they were of Japanese ancient. The Japanese imprisoned during World War II belonged to one of two groups called Issei and Nisei. The Issei were Japanese citizens who came to America to get a better life. They were not allowed to become citizens of the United States because the Naturalization Act of 1790 limited citizen to “any alien, being a free white person.” At the time Asians were considered nonwhite.
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
The author of the statement has divided laws into two broad categories: just and unjust. This division is not correct. Any one individual cannot decide whether laws are just or unjust. It is subjective to personal interests. Hence, it is wrong to say that one should obey just laws and disobey unjust laws.
The Civil liberties of the Japanese on the west-coast were more important than the common good because there was no valid evidence that the Japanese were planning an attack with their homeland. The Government illegally took away the Japanese’ civil rights, and it was unnecessary to remove the Japanese from their homes. First of all, there was no valid evidence that the Japanese were planning an attack on the United States with their homeland. During the world war, a man by the name of John Lesesne DeWitt, accused the Japanese people to have