. . I am sure I am going to get in trouble for saying it, for $65 you can bring that lawsuit" (Carter, 2013, pp.4). The stop and frisk law is one reason I do not believe in law enforcement profiling. Even though some law enforcement officers allow personal feelings and power to allow them to not follow policy, some policies are not followed morally because I do not feel that officers should be allowed to frisk someone who is innocent and has not committed a crime because it takes the focus off real criminals and onto innocent people; it causes emotional stress.
Thoreau was once sent to jail for refusing to pay his taxes and I support this episode of civil disobedience as justified. Thoreau did not pay his taxes because he objected the use of the revenue to finance the Mexican War and enforcement of slavery laws. He did not request for his money to be used for the enforcement of slavery laws, therefore felt he had the right to protest and act out civil disobedience. Paul Harris defines civil disobedience as "an illegal, public, nonviolent, conscientiously motivated act of protest, done by someone who accepts the legitimacy of the legal and political systems and who submits to arrest and punishment" (2). Before I supported his civil disobedience, I opted to see if it was justified.
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.
Thoreau opposed to these because they promote unjust government practices which he was strongly against. According to the American heritage dictionary “Civil Disobedience” is refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau stated “That government is best which governs least, and I would like to see it acted up more rapidly and systematically” (pg227). Thoreau did not believe that the government should have the final say on everything. The citizens of this country should have rights in the decision making process and the opportunity to think for themselves also.
Although the Tenure of Office Act that got Andrew Johnson impeached was unconstitutional, this does not mean that he did not deserve to get impeached. Johnson was not a good president because he let personal issues of revenge on aristocrats and viewpoints of slavery blind him. Johnson would also have a stubborn personality that did not aid him in his path for reconstruction against the radical republicans. He would let feelings get in the way of his reason that made him the only president to be forced out of office due to breaking a law that he knowingly deified and would end in his demise igniting “ridicule” by the American people (H.A. Tompkins).
He bestows us with what we deserve ; nothing more, nothing less. And He told us that we have no right to steal anything from anyone else because it does not belong to us and was not meant for us. This concept, that stealing some else^s property is bad, is also included in mankind^s nature. And therefore it is an absolute law. Examples of thieves and robbers do not refute the existence of the absolute law because they are just people who do not have a strong belief in themselves.
Racial Profiling has been around ever since the 911 incident for the sake of the National security. Although it must not be a reason to keep the peaceful civilian in a threat of getting captured just because of their outlooks and their nationality, religion etc. It does not mean if one person is a national threat, the ones whose alike are all terrorists. All human beings are individual, and unique we cannot characterize a person without knowing them, but the mechanical and efficient world we have nowadays has lost its logical mind, and are only able to determine a person by their outlooks. Therefore, this irrational and illogical treatment must be stopped immediately to regain what the nation used to be and what its thriving for.
And in some way, barbarity is the quickest way to stop being belittled by others. In my opinion, it’s wrong. First of all, if you want to gain equality rights and respect, violence is not a convincible method because that would contradict your rights to freedom. May as well look back to American civil rights movement, what the leader Martin Luther King claimed most was nonviolence. “We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence.”6 Violence is rude; violence is irrational; violence is against humanity.
My immediate response to the question would undoubtedly argue that such morally offensive material should not be allowed constitutional protection. The mere mentioning of such a proposition strikes anger at the heart of moral conscience. But, my moral convictions are not, nor are anyone else’s for that matter, sufficient grounds to deny anyone their First Amendment right to freely engage in the distribution of such material if they so desire to do so. Moreover, the First Amendment clearly dictates that Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech. Thus, as a long established and highly empowered legal doctrine, it must ultimately be respected by the government to the fullest extent.
Detaining someone because of that could lead to many suits on the law enforcer himself. Discrinantion should never be a tool in the legal process. eventhough statistics say otherwise racial profiling should not be used as a reasnaoble cause or suspicion to a law enforcer because it is unlawful, dangerous, discriminatory and ineffective.