Henry David Thoreau questioned how an unjust law should be handled, should it just be followed, should action be taken to fix the law while still obeying it, or should it just be transgressed completely. The idea that one of these answers is correct is a fallacy, and a bad assumption. The answer depends on the situation at hand. Any law that tramples on the rites of a person or a group of people is a law that should be ignored and protested and actively broken. On the other hand a law that just lacks sense; is one that we could just live with or push to have fixed.
The PATRIOT Act is the perfect law to show how the lines of how to handle bad legislation easily blur. This is a law that allows the federal government to strip a person of their "inalienable rights" if they are suspected of terrorist like activities. The PATRIOT Act has to be actively fought but it must be obeyed at all times. Even though this is a law that takes away from the rights of every citizen it must be obeyed; If not you become guilty of everything it was designed to stop. Although, if all of America sa...
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
The Patriot Act violates many of the amendments in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment, for example, gives American citizens freedom of speech, press, and religion. The Patriot Act allows the government to monitor the religious and political papers and institutions of citizens that are not even reasonable suspects for criminal activity. Church,
After the horrendous terrorist attack on the New York Trade Center a new Bill was passed by congress shortly after September 11, 2004. This bill is known as The Domestic Security Enhancement Act also called Patriot Act 2. This bill was designed as a follow-up to the USA Patriot Act to work in increasing government surveillance, detention and other law enforcement powers while reducing basic checks and balances on such powers. By the beginning of the year 2003 a draft of the legislation was available. Amongst the most severe problems the bill diminishes personal privacy by removing checks on government power, diminishes public accountability by increasing government secrecy, and diminishes corporate accountability under the pretext of fighting terrorism. Also the bill undermines fundamental constitutional rights of Americans under overboard definitions of “terrorism” and “terrorist organization” or under a terrorism pretext. Furthermore, unfairly targets immigrants under the pretext of fighting terrorism. (http://www.aclu.org/Safeand Free/SafeandFree.cfm?ID=11835&c=206)
injustice to another, then I say, break the law." This shows Thoreau’s policy of civil
Thoreau believed that when people disobey unjust laws, that will help change the laws to make them just...
...for him to do). Instead Thoreau believes that as unjust and imperfect as democracy is at that particular time, he looks to better times, a time when legislators have more wisdom and integrity and hold humanity in a higher regard. He recognizes that fairness exists in the hearts and minds of individuals, some whom he knows personally and he holds to a hope that men like these can and will transform what is in their conscience into a “state at last which can afford to be just to all men and to treat the individual with respect…”
For acts of civil disobedience to be justified, those acts need to be acts of protest. Thoreau desired a change ...
What is the Patriot Act? The USA PATRIOT act was signed into law quickly without much debate back in 2001 right after the September 11th attacks in New York, Washington, and Pennsylvania. The Patriot Act touches almost everything from more funding for businesses that are affected by terrorist attacks all the way to funding affected families of terrorist attacks. The main reason the Patriot act was put in place was to prevent future terrorist attacks on U.S. soil and overseas attacks on Americans. With the act the government would try to stop the attacks before they take place to prevent American deaths. The Patriot Act was put in place to protect America, and at the time many agreed with the Act and went along with it. That was at first. That was when many Americans felt threatened for their safety. Now, many have had time to reflect back on the Patriot Act and feel differently (Ball 2004 p. 78-84).
Thoreau understands that it is not the people’s sole responsibility to dedicate their lives in fighting corruption and social injustice, but he does hint at the importance of educating oneself on such matters. Doing so would ensure some change and progression that goes beyond simply voting, which, according to Thoreau, is not enough. In the text, he says, “Even voting for the right is doing nothing for it” (846). Some people, however, may either think this is enough or may be confident enough in the majority’s opinion to decide legislation, but this is imprudent to consider for “a wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority” (846-847). This is what gives power to the government and allows the government to do as it pleases with its citizens. In other words, this is what creates the “authority” within
Thoreau’s civil acts of defiance were revolutionary as he practiced a form of protest that
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
This is not what the Patriot Act was passed for; they have gone over their limits and are getting involved with things that don’t entirely concern them. This is exactly what infuriates the people because they are getting out of their boundaries to make a big fuss out of some minor crime that has nothing to pertain to terrorism. While the Patriot Act was put into place to stop terrorism, it has had a nasty after math. People suspected of terrorist activity have no civil rights. They are put in prison and held without due process regardless of whether they are innocent or not. This is just wrongful imprisonment because they don’t have a valid reason as to why they would put an innocent civilian behind bars. This act just concerns the people by any rational assessment. The power given to the government to conduct surveillance on citizens is just against the constitution because we have no privacy. The government is off-track and is labeling anyone as a suspected terrorist and will collect information about them. We are living in a society where slowly and slowly we’re going to lose most of our rights and be told what to do. We are gradually going to become somewhat close to a dictatorship and lose all of our rights. The Patriot Act also allows the above-mentioned sneak and peak warrants to be used for any federal crime,
In the world today, the Patriot Act states that it protects U.S. citizen's freedom. Iby ensuring the FBI's ability to examine anybody's daily activities. To me, this is a major contradiction. The Patriot Act is basically saying that the government has the ability to now control our freedom. According to the Patriot Act, law enforcement has the ability to access highly personal files such as medical, financial, and student records. This goes against the maxim freedom is slavery because this act is saying that it is ensuring American's freedom by allowing government officials to have surveillances on our everyday life. This is threatening many of our amendments. Some of our rights being threatened include the First Amendment: our freedom of religion, speech, and press. The Fourth Amendment is also in jeopardy, which is our freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. Other Amendments in jeopardy include: the Sixth Amendment that allows due process, the Eighth Amendment that protects citizens from cruel and unusual punishment, and the Fourteenth Amendment that gives equal protection laws to everyone. Other instances that challenge the freedom vs. slavery maxim came when the president talked about amending the constitution concerning marriages. As of right now, America can choose who they want to marry. This represents the freedom Americans have now. If this is passed, then the government will be able to decide whom the public can marry. When I say, "who the public can marry," I mean as far as same sex marriages or traditional man and woman marriages. This takes away the freedom of expression that society has today and replacing it with rules and regulations, symbolizing slavery. The government has made society today feel the need for protection.
There are several ways that Henry Thoreau's argument was effective. In my opinion his argument was effective and it had a very big impact on what he did. He stood up for what he believed in and faced the consequences that he knew he was going to face.