I don't think it's right to break the law, no matter what the circumstances are. Breaking the laws is wrong, and people shouldn't think that it's an okay thing to do. If you don't agree with the law, you should try to get in contact with someone high up in the government and explain to them your stance on the issue, and why you believe it needs to be changed, or removed altogether. The laws are in place for a reason, and that is to protect us. American citizens need to start respecting the laws more, and respect those who enforce them.
The law, you'd think it would be common sense to follow your state, and country laws, but sadly, many people break our country's laws on a daily basis. "Disobedience to bad laws can sometimes jolt democratic processes into motion." Says Charles Frankel in his article Is It Right to Break the Law? Now, a democratic process, seems like what we need in this country. We need everyone to have equal rights, and though the government says everyone has equal rights, I don't think that's true.
…show more content…
In his article Is It Right to Break the Law? Charles Frankel says'"During prohibition, a large number of respectable, conservative Americans dutifully broke the law in defense of what they regarded as inalienable human right." Now, there is life, love, the pursuit of happiness, as well as our inalienable rights. But, some people may think that this or that is an inalienable right. I believe the laws of the United States of America are a good thing, and something that is needed in this
The book “Last Call,” by Daniel Okrent, provides an interesting insight into, as he describes it the “triumphant failures” of prohibition, and the bold display of ignorance that defined the policies governing its enactment, enforcement, and eventual downfall. Okrent takes us into the debates waged between what he repeatedly refers to as wet and dry Americans. Okrent’s remarkably original account, shows readers how the prohibition supporters integrated native fears of immigration, ignorance, and stereotypes in a movement that would in time shaped a decade and even resulted in an unprecedented failure in an amendment of the American Constitution.
The hopes of the prohibitionist were dreams of a healthier and more successful nation. Their dreams were spun from the idea of shutting out the alcohol industry and enforcing large industries and stressing family values. The eighteenth amendment consisted of the end of sales, production, transportation, as for importation and exportation of intoxicating liquors. Their imaginations were large and very hopeful. The prohibitionists felt that alcohol is a slow poison of their community. They felt that if the liquor industry was shut out that Americans would spend their hard earned money in the clothing, food, and shoe industries therefore boosting the American economy. Many felt, “Seeing what a sober nation can do is indeed a noble experiment and one that has never yet been tried, (Crowther, 11) Prohibition was a test of the strength of the nation and an attempt at cleaning up societies evils. These reformers denounce alcohol as a danger to society as well as to the human body. Some ethnic hopes of prohibition was to regulate the foreigners whose backgrounds consisted on the use of alcohol for religious purposes. And try to enforce an American valued society upon them. Many reformists felt that ending the use of alcohol would protect American homes and families. They felt that alcohol use was the root of their family’s destruction. Many women felt that their husbands would waste a lot of their income on the purchase of alcohol and not on family needs. Alcohol was often known as a “poison, or sin”. Another hope for the eighteenth amendment was to reduce the crime and death rate. Many people felt that drunkenness was the cause of many of the nations crimes. Prohibitionist felt very passionately on their cause and were often called “dry’s.” They felt their battle was justified and that, “it is manifest destiny that alcohol will not survive the scrutiny,”(Darrow and Yarros, 20).
In the 1920’s a heightened suspicion of communist activities on domestic American land arose, the Red Scare. Benjamin Gitlow, a prominent member of the Socialist party, was arrested and convicted on charges of violating the New York Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902 during these drastic times. What was his violation? The publication and circulation of the Left-Wing Manifesto, a mere pamphlet, in the United States was his infringement. He appealed the decision on the basis that it violated his First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and press and it was passed on to the United States Supreme Court. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of Gitlow on the basis of Section 1 of the Fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution states, “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Gitlow v. New York exemplifies the protection of civil right and liberties with judicial activism.
a law made by God, called the Law of Reason. This law gives humankind liberty,
...ngle leading banker in the U.S’ a single leading industrial executive….who does not break this law and who does not drink.” The public did not want their freedom threatened by a need to enforce a failing law they did not support in the first place.
In the twenty century, the U.S society was in the period of tending to be a human base society. The laws in America were introduced to create a fair and regulated society for its citizens. The First and Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution granted that the U.S citizens have the freedom of speech. And the New York State had its law of Criminal Anarchy Act since 1902 for “organized government should be overthrown by force or violence, or by assassination of the executive head or of any of the executive officials of government, or by any unlawful means (n.p).” The citizen in the any state of the U.S should always both obey the state law and follow the national constitution. Otherwise, the citizen would get corresponding punishment for jail, community service or even death for most states. However, the case of Gitlow vs New York happened in 1925 that majorly argued about the U.S citizens’ guaranteed freedom of speech in the First Amendment of Constitution and the New York State’s Criminal Anarchy Act.
There were only 3,000 to 3,500 federal Prohibition agents, less than 1,500 on the field. This simply is not enough to patrol the thousands of miles of border, it is impossible (Doc C). To add to that, many people continued manufacturing alcohol. For example in document C, there was a house adjacent to a police station that was manufacturing moonshine. The weak enforcement of the law caused the people to lose respect for the law. Another factor that made people lose respect for the law was that there was a double standard. Bootleggers are being sent to jail for selling alcohol and yet Senators and Congressmen were violating the law without any consequences. This is very upsetting and an obvious reason the people of the time did not respect the law.
One reason we must have the second amendment is to protect the freedom for which our country fought so hard to win. The Declaration of Independence states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”[1] However, if these rights were ‘self-evident’, why did the founding fathers need to grant them to the states? We might as well ask why man is the way that he is, imperfect. We all wonder about this sad truth, but the fact remains that man is fallen. These rights are self-evident, obvious to human reason, but because humans are fallen, we are sometimes blinded to these apparent truths and we err in our rationality. King George was blind to these unalienable rights, as were Na...
In a democracy, people choose representatives to lead and govern. However, these representatives might take unpopular steps. In such instances, the people may show their disapproval of a policy and vent their grievances through acts of civil disobedience. Henry Thoreau said, “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” It is both the right and responsibility of a person to fight an unjust law, and civil disobedience allows one to convey his thoughts and ideas in a passive, nonviolent way.
The thought that Prohibition would have a positive effect on society, and that once it was in full effect everything would turn out peachy, was around long before America adopted this theory as an amendment. The Anti-Saloon League was formed in 1893 and it became one of the strongest leading political forces in the national ban of alcohol. The public of America believed that everything would turn out just wonderful if alcohol was banned, because that’s what society was telling them, and they didn’t care to look into, or think all of the unintended consequences, because the government didn’t care to look into it either. Prohibition was no doubt a respectable idea, getting drunks to abandon drinking...
History has spoken. The words of the weak started it. Their actions proved it. Disobeying a law is a crime that the offender should be willing to take the punishment for and let his sacrifice be used as a point to rally around to create a just, moral change. Whenever a law is deemed unjust, there is good reason for breaking it to achieve justice. Civil Disobedience will never be legal and those who employ it should be willing to accept the penalty that comes with breaking a law. It has been shown through historic cases, modern examples, and the core values of a democratic society that show Civil Disobedience not only works, but should be used as a tool to demonstrate the moral objectives that are being sought. Considering some laws are unjust and in contradiction with the core beliefs of society, there are certain times when breaking a law is reasonable, but it is by no means encouraged and should be done at the law breakers own risk.
According to Thomas Jefferson, all men are created equal with certain unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are rights given to the people by their Creator rather than by government. These rights are inseparable from us and can’t be altered, denied, nullified or taken away by any government, except in extremely rare circumstances in which the government can take action against a particular right as long as it is in favor of the people’s safety. The Declaration of Independence of the United States of America mentions three examples of unalienable rights: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. I believe these rights, since they are acquired by every human being from the day they are conceived, should always be respected, but being realistic, most of the time, the government intervenes and either diminishes or
The prohibitionists had several motives for letting loose their concern of alcohol. The main issue discussed, using the example of the average middle-class citizen, was the aspect of growing children and the effect of alcohol on the family. Facts show that children with parents that have major drinking problems are more “defective” than children with parents that have little to no alcohol trouble (doc. B). Also, more generally, the prohibitionists tried vigorously to directly relate prohibition to progressivism. This was one of their key tactics to their eventually success with the 18th. The movement had strong backup that showed the world that they weren’t just a group of extremists fighting for a cause that probably wouldn’t work. Their emphasis on fact and reason kept them afloat; this is shown (in doc. C) with the statements of the American Medical Association, mentioning that they specifically discourage the use of alcohol, and it is said as “detrimental to the human economy.”
laws made by others in our society, and decide whether or not the laws we make
Prohibition, the greatest thing that has happened, was what most “dry” people thought. Yes, prohibition did stop a lot of people from consuming alcohol. Prohibition helped turn some “wets”, people who consumed alcohol, into “drys”, which were individuals that did not consume alcohol. Unfortunately, there was a huge downside to prohibition. Throughout the times of prohibition, the rate of gang activity that was involved in daily life rose dramatically due to the desire to obtain alcohol despite the fact that it had been made illegal.