There are two sides to the debate: one being that the flag should be protected by law, and one being that it should not because it restricts free speech. There have been times when Congress has tried to pass laws protecting the flag, but Supreme Court as struck those laws down by deeming them as “violating the constitutional guarantee of free speech, and hence unconstitutional” (Wall, 1995). However, despite the Supreme Court’s ruling of the laws being unconstitutional, there are many advocates that are still trying to pass flag protection laws by amending the Constitution to allow it. This cannot be done. The constitution should not be amended to protect the flag because it would be a violation to our first amendment: our right to free speech.
There was a lot of opposition to the Constitution. Both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists did not want to attempt to create a new Constitution, or even worse have another American Revolution if the people felt their rights were truly being violated. The founding fathers wanted the support of the people for their government. The Bill of Rights was a compro... ... middle of paper ... ...ese values negatively affects people around them, then the motives are questioned. They have freedom, but they must also be responsible with the rights established for them.
The question on the constitutionality of having supreme court justices, who are appointed and not elected by the people, deciding on the constitutionality of laws and legislation is questionable. When the Marshall court handed down the Marbury v. Madison decision claiming the right to judicial review, everything changed, for better or worse. Dworkin’s writings attempt to reiterate what a democracy is and its purpose in serving the people. His statements are almost contradictory in that he says there is a need to avoid the moral reading of the constitution, for it gives too much power to the judges. Yet he also says that the originalism readings will date the constitution and make it less relevant.
One should cultivate a res... ... middle of paper ... ... what is right and wrong morally will have complete power, which can easily lead to a tyrannical ruler. Thoreau says we should not obey unjust laws - yet, if everyone did this, people would begin to call 'unjust' laws that they did not particularly like or that were hard to follow. In addition, this exhortation is completely against Biblical teaching. We are to obey governing authorities unless their laws go against God's law. Minorities can influence the government, but not in the way that Thoreau advises.
The patriots of “The New World” have a much more logical reasoning than the loyalists because they felt that the British parliament was in violation their constitutional rights. First and foremost, “No taxation without representation” is one of the largest leading causes of the American Revolution and the colonists wanting their independence from Britian. This was based on the simple fact that they had been denied their “rights of Englishmen”, primarly the right to be taxed by their own representatives and not the British Parliament. Many colonists believed that, if they were not directly represented in the British Parliament, any laws the British passed taxing them were considered illegal and were in violation of the colonies and its’ citizens rights based on the Bill of Rights passed in 1689. Parliament actually intended that the colonists would find interests in having a “virtual represention”, but that idea found very little support from the colonies because they still felt that they were not represented in governmental actions by the British, the colonies insisted on direct representation as opposed to virtual.
The two major points disagreement between the two groups were the power and scope of the federal government and the lack of a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. The anti-federalists wanted a national government that would stay weak and have little control over the states. They also stated that without a list of rights(Bill of Rights)given to the people the national government might abuse the rights of the citizens. They considered it crucial to continue with a confederation of sovereign states based on the principle of local self government. The anti-federalists thought the constitution would create a national government that would make the previous states into one.
Mostly the Anti-Federalists thought that the Constitution created too strong a central government. They felt that the Constitution did not create a Federal government, but a single national government. They were afraid that the power of the states would be lost and that the people would lose their individual rights because a few individuals would take over. They proposed a “Bill of Rights”, to make sure the citizens were protected by the law. They believed that no Bill of Rights would be equal to no check on our government for the people.
On the other hand, if a person’s human rights are declared to be infringed by the courts, they know have the right to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. This can be very damaging to Britain’s political reputation, but this path is not accessible to all for it is a very expensive process and it is only enforceable if Britain regards EC decisions as supreme-which is very doubtful.
Inspired by an article I have recently read called “Observations of the New Federal Constitution and on the Federal and State Conventions” by Mary Otis, warns the literate of the annihilation of independence and also speaks of the absence of the rule calling for a restraint on how long someone can hold office. I concur with the general public that this is indeed a problem that must be resolved. Someone should not be able to run as much as they want because this could create flaws in the government system. The fact that they also tried to blend this in without coming straight forward with it is also alarming. This gives us even more reason to believe a central government could create too much power and result in that of a monarchy (doc 2).
In their argument, two–party presidential system and multiparty parliamentarianism cannot in any wise be equated with the multiparty presidentialism. They augmented that parliamentary system of government practically presents some challenges though it claims to resolve the political deadlock. It would involve ongoing desire for majority consent from the legislature, the hopes of transforming the polity or demanding for the new electoral process, and better transparency in the election. Conversely, they stressed that the multiparty presidential system has more to deliver. Besides, multipartism in conjunction with presidentialism would enhance political inclusion.