It can be seen as a good approach to morality as it does not allow people from different denominations such as cultures or where you are born or in different situation they may find themselves to build their own moral rules and framework to life, it is personal but is guided by these innate rules. Religious people also share natural law ideas as they argue that there is an eternal unchanging part of morality which remains unchanged regardless of personal opinions and preferences. They believe that God created them with a purpose and that all the rules guiding them from natural law help them to fulfil this purpose. Christianity has a great deal of support for the view that there is a natural law of morality. The Christian understanding of this concept is based largely upon the work of Thomas Aquinas as he explained that faith and reason are closely related.
One secondary idea that supports this primary idea is when Lincoln stated on his way to take office in Washington, “I have often inquired myself, what great principle or idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together…It was not the mere patter of the separation of the colonies from the mother land; but something in that Declaration giving liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but hope to the world for all future time” (pg. 115). Another secondary idea that supports this is found later on in the same page when Lincoln remarks on the importance of protecting this freedom, “but I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, in the pleasure of Almighty God, die by”. Another primary idea that is introduced in this article is found on page 115 where Meacham notes that when it came to the Civil War, both the Union and Confederate believed that God was on their side. Both sides prayed to the same God to lead throughout the turmoil of the Civil War.
We see our independence again when President Monroe issues what is known as the Monroe Doctrine, stern warning for Europe and the rest of the world to stay out of the Western Hemisphere. Although in this instance we did not acquire any additional territory, the spirit of Manifest Destiny was there. As the “city upon a hill” we were obligated to protect the growth of democracy in the Western Hemisphere. It was our destiny to allow other nations to have the benefits of a government that is true and just, and we were willing to fight for that. Finally, the creation of the Santa-Fe Trail is another example of Manifest Destiny.
The 1st Amendment The 1st amendment is the freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. In the “Politics In America,” it says that the “First Amendment prohibits the government from abridging freedoms of speech, press, assembly, and petition” (93). That’s basically saying that the government can’t reduce or lessen those freedoms. The book also states that the “First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing a religion or interfering with the free exercise of religion” (93). The Bill of Rights are “Written guarantees of basic individual liberties; the first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution” (92).
The principle was adopted by the Founding Fathers due to their fear of totalitarianism. Montesquieu argued for separation of powers in his book L’Esprit de Lois, where he stated that separation of powers will avoid tyranny ‘When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person…there can be no liberty.’ On the contrary to the US, the UK’s powers are fused; the Prime Minister is both the executive and part of the legislature. In the US system there is also a separation of personnel, this means that no person can be a member of more than one branch at the same time. When Senator Al Gore was elected vice-president in 1992, he had to resign from the Senate. Similarly, in 2008, Barack Obama too had to resign from the Senate.
Knowledge, its followers believed, could only come from the careful study of actual conditions and the application of an individual's reason, not from religious inspiration or traditional beliefs. Liberty meant freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom from unreasonable government (torture, censorship, and so on). The importance of the Declaration in the history of law continues even to the present day. Whatever may be the value or worthlessness of its general phrases, it is under the influence of this document that the conception of the public rights of the individual has developed in the positive law of the states of the European continent. Until it appeared public law literature recognized the rights of heads of states, the privileges of class, and the privileges of individuals or special
The Equal Protection Clause is totally geared toward the actions of the government and not private citizens. It is designed to prevent discrimination by the government, however, it does not prevent any such discrimination by private citizens. In order to determine if the Equal Protection Clause
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY: THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG 1 Sovereign Immunity: The King Can Do No Wrong Octavia Melvin Dr. Timothy Bagwell American Public University THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 2 Abstract This paper is on the doctrine of sovereign immunity—simply put, the doctrine that the “king can do no wrong” or in our case the “government” rather than king. In this paper, is explained what sovereign immunity means and how it works in practice. Discuss whether the immunity doctrines are obsolete and why. Suggest some possible alternatives to existing immunity doctrines. THE KING CAN DO NO WRONG: SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY 3 The King Can Do No Wrong: Sovereign Immunity The definition of “Sovereign Immunity” is: legal protection that prevents a sovereign state or person from being sued without consent (West’s encyclopedia of American Law, 2008).
Morgan Wolfgang September 13, 2012 English Mrs. Meister Is The Constitution Still Relevant? How would you answer the question “Is our Constitution still relevant to this day?” Well I would say that yes it is still relevant but there are rights that have been stretched and should be defined, such as The Right to Bear “Arms.” Are we misusing this liberty given to us by our founding fathers? I believe this is a God-given right to defend ourselves, our liberty and our families, but there is no reason that civilians should have bombs or grenades in their homes, that is what we have our military, to protect our country in major ways. All governments, dictatorships, and monarchies have the right to protect their families and liberty, but under the International Small Arms Control Standards made up by the United Nations the Right to Bear Arms is not given to us by our government it is just an American right, it’s a Human right to self-defense. Our founders understood that this right was essential to our self-defense as the children of God.
Situation ethics depends on Christians freely choosing faith that god is love, so giving first place to Christian love. Therefore echoing the sentiments of the bible. Finally, situation ethics puts humans first along with their concerns. This is unlike laws that seem to go around a person’s wellbeing, putting that first. Showing how the ethic is neither legalistic nor antinomian.