Control Gun There are many different opinion of what causes crime. Some people say crimes caused by guns and some say the cause is the people before the guns. In New York Time Magazine on 1994 an argument essay printed by the author James Q Wilson which is “ Just Take Away Their Gun’’. Wilson wrote the opinion of government and public in the first paragraph. He mention what is the president and public want from gun control laws even the public think all new government laws will not work to reduce the illegal used of gun.
There are many cases that indicate that the Court often takes the easy way out by listening to public opinion rather than truly upholding the Constitution (Bartee, 2006). This is why the Poe v. Ullman case, 367 U.S. 497 (1961), was quickly made invalid just a few short years after it was decided. When the Court makes a decision that does violate privacy rights, groups of American citizens get together to protest and find ways to influence the Court to overturn those decisions (Bartee, 2006). Therefore, in some instances the Court does overstep its boundaries as it did when it made birth control pills illegal. However, it backed down a few years later by changing the decision based largely on public opinion.
But in all reality, if guns weren’t around, people would still find a way to do crazy messed up things to kill people. Yes with stricter laws on gun control there will be less shootings, but what will replace guns? President Obama’s attempt to make owning guns harder doesn’t invade your rights. Having rules to protect people is all that should matter. While some worry that they cant do what they want, the United States
Not every state agrees that gay marriage is wrong and illegal, but if the federal government were to pass a amendment outlawing gay marriage then every state who allows gay marriage would have to declare it unconstitutional and against the law. This shows that the federal and state governments have different restrictions. The state government protects the people of the state but the federal government protects everything in this country. Once something is declared unconstitutional, it will over ride any state government policy. Some people have mixed emotions about the way the government works but overall the relationship between state and federal governments protect the everyday
Down with the Patriot Act The Patriot Act is a very controversial law. It allows the government much more room to do as they please. Some of these practices that government officials can do are monitoring phone calls, emails, and going through personal records. They say this will help prevent terrorism, but is losing one’s privacy really worth it? Could there be a better way to prevent terrorism?
First Amendment and Pornography These articles have opposing viewpoints on laws concerning pornography. Both authors argue their side of the issue while having many of the same ideas as each other. To begin, “The First Amendment Junkie” by Susan Jacoby states that certain restrictions on pornography would be a violation of the first amendment. Susan Jacoby is known for writing about women's rights and issues for popular magazines such as Glamour, McCalls, and The Nation. The next article is "Let's put Pornography Back in the Closet" by Susan Brownmiller.
We do not officially sanction the use of beating & torture or execution for sex crimes. The printing of sex offender on one’s driver’s license as well as posting of warnings on websites could be seen as opening the door to vigilante behavior. Personally, I have no problem, just some pause, with such notifications, but there may be court challenges by some civil libertarian groups in re to such practices. There are even sex offender advocacy groups, such as ReformSexOffenderLaws.Org, set up for the purpose of modifying/overturning laws they perceive as unfair. The disconcerting thing is that on some issues a valid point is made practically as well as
The department of justise is trying to ban racial profiling. There are laws and regulations but people do break them just like other laws. Therefore we cannot generalize for the entire population and say that racial profiling excists and by tighting up the security more racial profiling is occuring. Overall, although peoples privacies and rights are being touched by this enforced system, the government is only trying to protect us. Works Cited Baker, Nancy V. "National Security Versus Civil Liberties."
The first and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution should be enough to grant people the rights to dictate what they do with their bodies. Some states have already legalized assisted-suicide calling it Death with Dignity. Other states have strong religious values, which members of congress hold with them, keeping assisted-suicide illegal in others. Bottom line is that the argument over assisted-suicide laws is much similar to debates over things such as abortion. How much control can or should the government have over a person’s body?
We must stop this from happening by keeping our freedoms, ending this drug dependent nation, and keeping independent media alive. As a community today we will give up many of our freedoms and liberties for safety. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, liberties have been given up because people feel safer. But are we really safer? Since the laws have changed it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon in New York City.