Sophocles and Thoreau Civil Disobedience Since the very conception of the idea of an organized government, the response by some members of the society being governed has naturally been to oppose the laws or decisions made by their leaders. Most commonly seen as an active form of nonviolent resistance, such movements are now known as acts of civil disobedience and have been prominently displayed in various cultures and as a function have appeared in numerous written texts as well. With many famous historical figures being associated with the movement of civil disobedience such as Henry David Thoreau and Mahatma K. Gandhi, it sometimes comes as a surprise to learn of lesser known figures, such as the famous Greek dramatist Sophocles, whose works have also proven to be essential texts on this movement. Two specific texts of significant importance are Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government” also widely known as “Civil Disobedience,” and Sophocles’ play “Antigone.” With “Antigone” existing as one of the earliest depictions of civil disobedience, and Thoreau’s text serving as one of the most prominent publications on the movement in today’s age, the similarities in their underlying message prove that the ideals of civil disobedience have remained seemingly unchanged since the birth of the movement. This common message, not only between the two works in discussion but in many others, is that of the duty of the people themselves to disobey unjust laws and demands of the government in question.
Human rights, since their inception, have been a mess of hard to define and even harder to enforce set of rules and guidelines for the treatment of people all over the world. Human right activists such as Jack Donnelly have said that “Human rights are a social practice that aims to realize a particular vision of human dignity and potential by institutionalizing basic rights.” In an effort to make these laws simpler, and a little less intimidating to learn, they have been largely categorized into sections. In this paper I will discuss two of those sections, first and second generation rights, debate the affect they have on the lives of everyday people and ultimately determine whether or not only one of or both of these generations are necessary for human beings to live a dignified life. The rights contained within the two generations vary from simple concepts to more complex ideas, all of which have bearing on the way people live their lives. First generation rights are rights that are civil and political in nature, in the words of DeLaet they “…include the right to life, liberty, and security of person, the right to property, the right to freedom of speech and thought, the right to a fair trial, and the right to vote” (DeLaet, Debra “The Global Struggle for Human Rights” (Coursepack # 4)).
Human Rights, Prisoners and Courts – You will have followed the recent debate about prisoners’ right to vote in the press. Please discuss the key constitutional law issues it raises, citing the relevant case law from the ECtHR and the Supreme Court (former House of Lords) and academic literature. The recent debate over prisoner’s rights to vote has been a controversial issue in the media, one with political, moral and legal complications. In theory, Western liberal democracies, such as the United Kingdom (UK) are said to protect a range of rights: Freedom of conscience; freedom of expression; freedom of association; freedom of protest; freedom of movement; freedom from arbitrary; the right to a fair trial; freedom from torture; and the right to own property. In practice, however, such rights are limited by a range of statutes that have been enacted by Parliament for example the Criminal Justice Act 1984 could be said to limit freedom of movement and the freedom of protest.
Many members of congress believed that individuals should have these rights regardless of having it formally written and didn’t want to create a Bill of Rights. In fact, some believed that implementing personal rights might actually take away rights (UMKC, 2012). These people were called federalists. James Madison had a different agenda though. The anti-federalists sought after a proposal that focused on passing laws, which protected the people as well as the government.
Civil Liberties is one's freedom to exercise one's rights as guaranteed under the laws of the country. There are many ways in which the Supreme Court is good at protecting civil liberties and others that show they aren’t. I will be looking at the different ways to try and seek an answer as to whether the Supreme Court is effective at protecting civil liberties. The Supreme Court is a complicated organisation. It is different in many ways from the other branches of government, but there are still similarities and the same factors that affect all three branches equally.
Viceroys were notorious for applying orders with discretion; using the maxim "I obey but do not comply." In addition, viceroys and audiencias were in conflict most of the time, with the latter not responsible to the viceroy but reporting directly to the crown. 3) Discuss some of the “independence movements” in Latin America. The class system was very important in Latin America. It determined a peoples place in society.
The matter of forming the United States constitution is of much debate between; Slavery, state representation, and government configuration. Of all three, I think government configuration is the most important because of these three reasons. First the idea of distribution of powers between national and state governments, second they were the only one making compromises. Many people feared a strong government would become tyrannical and oppress them just as Great Britain had done. That would not be true in a government configuration.
Moreover, there are more specific rules applied at regional scale as represented by the European Union and the inter-american systems. However, the international regime of protection of human rights is still quite fragile, mostly because its principles are constantly being object of protests (e.g. they are claimed to be universal, but in reality we face a variety of different notions, i.e. the African Chart or the Islamic Chart) and the notion of transnational “invocabilité” seems to clash with the notion of “sovereignty” of each Country. The human rights regime has been a branch of International Law since 1945.
There is a fierce debate surrounding the question whether it is the moral duty of citizens to obey laws even when they are bad. People take is for granted that a majority of the populace in the society we live in adhere to set laws. People are obliged to abide by the established laws, whether good or bad, due to moral or prudential reasons. According to the theory of prudential reasons, people abide by the set laws due to self-interest. In this regard, most people are pushed to abide by the laws of the land as a result of fear of consequences such as punishment and becoming a social outcast.
The USA also has a complex legal system, having both national and state courts. Federalism in this sense thus leads to confusion, as what is legal in one state may be illegal in another, making it sometimes difficult for the central government and the people to distinguish between state laws and federal laws. Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes writes “We are under a constitution, but the constitution is what the judges say it is.” The federal-state relationship is a continual source of conflict and controversy, and in these times the Supreme Court handles the issues. However, the federal constitution and the state constitution are open to individual interpretation. Federalism thus allows the Supreme Court to dictate the outcome, and without federalism, there may