Conversely, Philip L. Bryden argues against Martin, concluding that the charter is indeed democratic and Canadian. This essay agrees with Bryden’s argument that the Charter is not un-Canadian or antidemocratic, citing problems with Martin’s argument and making reasons as to why the Charter is such a fundamental part of Canadian Constitution. Robert Martin bases one part of his argument on the idea that the Charter is antidemocratic. He clarifies himself in his introduction, not faulting the Charter in and of its own for being antidemocratic, but instead claiming that the application of the Charter by humans is what is antidemocratic. Martin’s argument on how the Charter is antidemocratic has six main premises.
The Constitution guarantees that the government cannot take away a person's basic rights to 'life, liberty or property, without due process of law.' Courts have issued numerous rulings about what this means in particular cases. The precedent it sets shakes the judicial system foundation to its very core. Taking legal decisions out of the hands of a majority and putting it in the hands of one. Terri’s law was ruled as unconstitutional in a seven to zero vote by the United States Supreme Court.
In the United States of America, the people are protected by a group of laws called the Constitution. The very first of these laws is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (US Constitution) This decree states that for no reason may the government restrict the right of free speech to the people. Free speech is sort of like your opinion on matters.
This essay will explain and analyze two essays by individuals who express entirely different opinions of civil disobedience. In his essay, “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy”, Lewis H. Van Dusen strongly discourages the use of civil disobedience as a means for change. He feels that this act of disobedience directly contradicts our democratic system. The other individual being compared in this essay is Henry David Thoreau; who in his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, supports the act of peacefully challenging or protesting unjust laws. He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice.
Although Fahrenheit 451 contemplates how government censorship, control, and fear have the power to dictate life, it is offset by the atmosphere of perseverance placed around the novel, as well as Bradbury’s complete understanding of his First Amendment rights. Bradbury ties personal freedom to the right of an individual having the freedom of expression when he utilizes the issue of censorship in Fahrenheit 451. The First Amendment to the United States Constitution reads: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for redress of grievances.” The common reading of the First Amendment is that commitment to free speech is not the acceptance of only non-controversial expressions that enjoy general approval. To accept a commitment to the First Amendment means, in the words of Justice Holmes, “freedom for what we hate.” As quoted in Students’ Right to Read (NCTE, 1982), “Censorship leaves students with an inadequate and distorted picture of the ideals, values, and problems of their culture. Writers may often be the spokesmen of their culture, or they may stand to the side, attempting to describe and evaluate that culture.
Where to Draw the Line The First Amendment of the U.S. constitution boldly states that “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.” As members of society, we witness this privilege utilized in both positive and negative ways through our daily lives. But, what happens when this liberty is abused and the emotions of certain groups are damaged in response to this “freedom?” Through his essay, “Protecting Freedom of Expression at Harvard,” scholar and former president of Harvard University, Derek Bok, expresses his firm claim that “Hanging a Confederate flag in public view or displaying a swastika in response is insensitive and unwise because any satisfaction it gives students is far outweighed by the discomfort it causes
They believe we as human beings are prone to sin. We have a proclivity to do terrible things or to be tempted to so (p.30, 2008). They believe our freedom or success of government is dependent on virtue. They further added that only moral people would remain free. On those premise it is asserted that religion play an important part in nurturing the virtue needed for a free society.
In agreement, I believe all shall follow for strictly guidelines and restrictions, not to be precise within each Amendment, not one should uphold detail. The unwritten Constitution refers to traditions that have become part of our political system. Although George Washington warned us against Political Parties, they nominate candidates for office. Political Parties are not written into The Constitution, yet the people of the United States are left to vote and decide who the winner of the elections will be, and who will take the position as the next President of the United States. Yet, another reason why we, as a nation, alter the Constitution in our own ways, still allowing each part as an indication of mandate.
In Canada, a democratic nation, we pride ourselves on having the right to Freedom of Speech. What confuses most people is the difference between banning and censoring films. The main difference is when a film is banned, it is completely off limits for anyone to view. This method is very popular in countries such as Singapore, and Malaysia. They ban films that we find totally acceptable, even children’s films will be forbidden if seen as offensive in any way.
A core principle of the United Kingdom’s (UK) unwritten constitution is the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty - described by British constitutional scholar Albert Venn Dicey as the ‘keystone of the law of the constitution’ . Dicey defines parliamentary sovereignty as follows: ‘The principle of Parliamentary Sovereignty means neither more nor less than this, namely that Parliament thus defined has, under the English constitution, the right to make or unmake any law whatever; and, further, that no person or body is recognised by the law of England as having a right to override or set aside the legislation of Parliament’. Dicey’s account of parliamentary sovereignty consists of a positive and a negative limb. The positive aspect is that Parliament, as the supreme law-making body of the UK, has the ability to legislate on anything it wants. The negative aspect is that once an Act of Parliament has received Royal Assent, no person or body can question its validity, not even the courts.