Terri’s law was ruled as unconstitutional in a seven to zero vote by the United States Supreme Court. We are a country built on laws and we must govern our decisions by the rule of that law and not by how we feel. Anyone with a heart can understand the grief demonstrated by the members of Terri’s family. But that is not the letter of the law. What is in the Constitution always must always be up held over
First Amendment: My view and theirs 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. ----First Amendment The First Amendment has led Americans to believe in a hallowed sense of freedom that does not exist; freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in this country has never been absolute. You can't yell fire in a crowded theater, solicit bribes, make terrorist threats, slander another, intentionally inflict emotional distress or be obscene in public (Dickerson). What Americans do have a right to is their opinion and the means by which to express it, no matter if the opinion is favorable or not.
The notion that religion is of no significance to the growth and well-being of the American society is fraught with danger. This cornucopia of differing culture demands a common thread that binds its citizens together. It astounds me how our judiciary came to the erroneous conclusion that the First Amendment implies that religion should not pay a role in our democratic republic. I believe the founders, as forwarding thinking as they were, would have provided a more closed language, had they known that this statement:” Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” (p.11.2008),This Amendment that was meant to buttress the anti federalist position on government interference with
In an overview, they express hostility towards big government, big business, big national debt, and big taxes. Their beliefs are surrounded upon the Constitution. “The constitution is a timeless document that guarantees our basic freedoms” (Tea Party Patriots). They claim to support all personal freedoms, as long as no harm comes to others or take away rights from other American people. The Tea Party movement believes no American President, Democrat, nor Republican should ever go beyond the Constitution, regardless of the issue at hand.
Ethical perspective is not always about making everyone happy, because it is virtually impossible to make everyone happy. Ethical perspective is more focused on making the best decision for the good of all individuals involved as well as setting the standard in future situations. These ethical lenses helped to influence my decisions based on the information that was provided. It allowed me to be fair and just towards all individuals concerned as well as guide provide me with the proper steps to
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
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.
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.
These are surprisingly simple questions to answer, self ownership is not a hard concept to grasp. Self Ownership is the concept that you and I as sovereign beings have full ownership and responsibility over our bodies and our minds. In Self ownership lyes the truest and most fundamental ideals of freedom-- do as you wish as long as your actions do not impede on the freedoms of others . This is a concept that many people believe we already practice in our society, but this is not the case. There are many laws that inhibit us as the owners of our bodies from having the freedom to do as we please.
GUN CONTROL “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” This amendment has created a debate for the United States, which has caused controversy throughout the American people. Some argue that the amendment creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" clearly states that citizens should be able to bear arms for protection. Under this "individual right theory" the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively