...killer who just got out of jail running loose in the streets. He sees a house with a family in it. He breaks into it with the intention of killing someone. As he enters, the owner of the house sees him with a gun in his jacket. The owner then goes to the drawer and pulls a gun on the person. That person just saved her life. because she owned a gun. This could happen to anyone. Gun control is the regulation of the sale and use of rifles and handguns. An injustice is violation of another's rights or of what is right. This could be unjust because guns can save lives. Gun control is unjust and adjusting it accordingly can solve our nations most persistent and pressing problems. Gun control has been a rising conflict in the 2000’s. Some people say we should have it some say we shouldn’t. And there are those others who just want to change gun control a little bit. Gun control is an injustice because if people can have guns they can save lives. But not just any person should be able to get a gun. Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President John F. Kennedy. Due to this assassination it increased public awareness which lead to the creation of increased and stricter gun control laws. People are entitled to own a gun. “The right to bear arms is stated in the 2nd amendment to the U.S. constitution. A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” (Right to Bear Arms). In other words the constitution allows U.S...
Words: 1376 - Pages: 6
... Capital Punishment is a controversial topic discussed in today's society. There is a heated debate on whether states should be able to kill other humans or not. People that are in favor of the death penalty say that it saves money by not paying for housing in a maximum prison. Those opposed say that it is against the constitution, and is cruel and unusual punishment for humans to be put to his or her death. I believe that the death penalty is against the constitution and is cruel and unusual punishment. The death penalty is cruel because you cannot punish anyone worse than by killing them. It is an unusual punishment because it does not happen very often an it should not happen at all. Therefore, I think that capital punishment should be abolished. Capital punishment is the death penalty, and has been legal in most states for many years. The death penalty did not begin reporting executions until 1930, although legal executions have been preformed before then. From 1930 to 1992, there have been 4,002 executions in the United States (Foster, Jacobs, Siegel 54). From around the 1930s to the 1960s there was a steep drop in the total numbers of executions in the US until the mid 1960s. The drop in executions is due to the lack of public support and legal challenges. Then a 10-year moratorium began in order to determine a constitutionally acceptable way to carry out the death penalty (54). The moratorium stopped in 1976 and since then, there have only been 525 executions. Currently...
Words: 2289 - Pages: 10
...Court’s decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “An unjust law is no law at all.” Source: King, M. L., Jr....
Words: 1005 - Pages: 5
...OPPOSED to the ratification of the constitution and you should be as well. The broad taxing power granted to the general government as a concurrent power to the taxation done by the states will be too great a burden for the people of this STATE to handle. It is of my suspicion that the intentions of men in support of the general government is to utterly ANNIHILATE the states and coalesce them to nothing more than the general government’s personal bankroll. The opposition claims that a strong standing army is necessary to protect citizens from threats domestic and abroad. To that I point to the Swiss who are at current surrounded by European military powers and yet are able to hold their own with just militias. Furthermore, a standing army in a time of peace is a sure signpost of tyranny if I have ever seen one. Militias are virtuous and righteous in their cause. A standing army is to act on the will of a president not elected by the people. This certainly will lead to conflict in any state that opposes any action carried out by the general government....
Words: 584 - Pages: 3
...They were feeling the effects of racism from the Civil War back in the 1800's. African Americans were not being treated kindly, neither were the White Americans who befriended them. Those who fought against the Jim Crow Laws weren't just fighting to be rebellious against the nation, but they were fighting to be free of an unjust unconstitutional law that was established and enforced by our Government. When I say they were "fighting" that law I do not mean they were actually throwing riots and chaos everywhere they went. They were more so doing peace rally's. They had peaceful sit-ins, they drove a bus around the country, they had conferences and speeches. They were not doing what today's rebellions are trying to justify as "peaceful". They still stood for the Red, White, and Blue. They obeyed civil laws, they did not kill, nor did they light towns on fire. The MLK group only wanted others to feel love for them, to accept them into society, and to be treated as real Americans with real...
Words: 631 - Pages: 3
...Same Sex Marriage Could you imagine the love of your life in the hospital fighting for his/her life and you, not being granted permission to visit them? Or could you imagine watching all of your family and friends get married, divorced, married again and divorced again and you’re not given even one opportunity to get married once? This is reality for many same sex couples. That is why I am in for making same sex marriage legal worldwide. Instead of focusing on the gender of couples, we should focus on the love that two people share. Not allowing a couple to get married based on sex is discrimination and furthermore, allowing them to marry won’t ruin the sanctity of marriage. People today talk about this sanctity whenever same sex marriage issues come in. This belief is part of the reason why many people believe that gay marriage should not be legalized in many places all over the world. To these people, I pose the question, is marriage really all that sacred in this country that letting anyone who wants to enter into same sex marriage make it not so? In my opinion, people like Kim Kardashian, Nicholas Cage, Jennifer Lopez, Britney Spears and anyone else who will jump into a short marriage, for example 72 hours and then get divorced, are the people who are destroying the sanctity of marriage. I believe that gay marriage should be legalized simply because marriage is something between two consenting adults who love each other, no matter what their gender may be. Last time I checked...
Words: 1048 - Pages: 5
...societal ideals warp how traditions are perceived by modern day justices, as they oftentimes believe that they know more than their predecessors. As documented by the University of Chicago, “Justice Thomas, in his opinion in the pledge case, helpfully recognized that under Lee v. Weisman the words ‘under God’ are unconstitutional. His radical solution was to deny the incorporation of the Establishment Clause and to throw out a whole series of precedents” (Nussbaum 4). Not only have we gone so far as to neglect the ideals presented by our Founding Fathers, but we have also denied individuals of their first amendment rights, as the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment entails respecting the establishment of religion for everyone, not just the preferences of the holistic majority. Justice Thomas, like several of his counterparts, believes that his powers are significant in comparison to the law because he is following the desires of the majority within society. This is a common ideology has only increased in...
Words: 1260 - Pages: 6
...looked down techniques retaliation and social dispute can work towards a greater good. However, as time passes, whether we as a country choose to forget or there is a willing ignorance we have turned against the same fundamentals that made us a country and tagged it as "untimely", "disrespectful", and "pesky." Protests and civil disobedience no matter how peaceful and legitimate receive backlash for being "out of place", "not the time" and "disruptive." In the words of Martin Luther King Jr. as he sat in his jail cell in Birmingham Jail, "One of the basic...
Words: 527 - Pages: 3
...provided by whom ever deems power within a particular nation. As straight-forward as this may seem, a sense of moral and reason tend to influence the law where a specific statute may not exist. If an individual is convicted of a crime, of which is not stated in a state or nation’s penal code, how is it possible to be convicted at all? If an individual proceeds to use a defense in a lawful contention such as the “right to privacy,” which is not explicitly written in the Constitution, is it a valid defense at all? I believe these can be answered, with the consideration of and through, moral and reason. Using the United States as an example, the law has been divided between the common law of the nation and its military legal system. There is a need to separate these systems solely because the responsibilities and duties of a civilian and a servicemen are simply incompatible. As we know The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States of America. Therefore, not only does each individual state govern with The Constitution at hand, but they also provide a separate penal code unique to its own. Laws prohibiting a personal liberty such as abortion (where arguments have been made whether this is true), have been declared unconstitutional in certain states where in others it is not; states simply have that power. But where does the claim “unconstitutional” become void due to moral and reasonable leniency? This will be further analyzed. The military justice system is based around the...
Words: 1108 - Pages: 5
...definition of freedom overtime has changed so that marginalized groups are less oppressed. Fighting those limitations that where once holding people back, but were not defined by their limits. As creatures of change, we socially have expressed a way that the population proceeds on in their way of life. "...'culture' is undergoing a transformation that is already challenging many of our most basic assumptions about what constitutes human society.”, written by George Yudice on page 72. Explaining that the practice of any culture are very difficult, and are varied depending on the change that, that cultural group has under gone. We as a society have grown complacent with the way that the government leaders have chosen our paths for life out for us, with a select few that fight against these social barriers that we have been placed under. These cultural groups have in some shape and form made cracks in social bonds that once held them back. Racially as a part of the African American community, you are told tales of how as an evolving culture we have gone through trials. Those trials of their true citizenship to get the freedoms that we are granted today. As wrote by Kevin K. Gains on page 16, "...African-descended peoples' struggle for identity and inclusion...”. The darkened past of this nation having been created and kept afloat on the disregard and cruel intentions done to Africans. The spirit of those Africans has been brought throughout the United States cultural power...
Words: 1465 - Pages: 6
...Dworkin justifies this through he net-natural law theory. He believes that law and morality are entwined and sometimes judges engage in moral reasoning to decide on a case. Some cases are not clear in their morals like Aquinas says and this is true to what Dworkin believes. The moral answers is not always right in front of you. This may seem undemocratic to some people however, Dworkin reassures us that moral reasoning in law making is certainly democratic. To help us better understand the law making system, Dworkin tells us about a judge name Herculs and describes what Hercules would to in the case of legal question. Hercules would look at a list of rules and see what principles those rules come from. Rules expresses some higher principles and from these principles we can make legal decisions. This is what judges (or jurors) do. Dworkin feels principles that animate the legal system make the legal system just. These principles guide legislators to make laws to help society function in an orderly way. In this case, Dworkin would believe that rules must have some underlying principle deriving from morality. Dworkin theory of net-natural law theory derives from the natural law theory. This is similar to the thinking of Thomas Aquinas, as discussed previously. The jurors in Morris looked at the laws and then proceeded to see that the law does not follow...
Words: 2002 - Pages: 9
...such denial of basic freedoms and have the capability to rise above and succeed against not only fellow black colleges, but white colleges as well. It was truly a movie of motivation to show how desire, dedication, and perseverance can prevail even in the toughest of times and the toughest of circumstances. During the time, Negro hate and racism was heavily practiced particularly in the state of Texas where Wiley College existed. Not only was the government enforcing unjust laws, they were denying any sort of freedom of speech which all Americans have the right of. In a country where we are all born as free men and are all granted rights as citizens, Blacks were an exception. Is this not unjust? Is this not a crime violating the constitution of this country? In the state of Texas, negroes were being lynched and tortured because of the rise against the status quo, and here we had a group of college students civilly disobeying the law. How can a man born in the U.S by law being given rights granted by the constitution be lynched and burned on the stake with no justice? These men have the same rights as any other white man and this group of students that joined together on a debate team spread these very same ideas across the nation. It was a simple idea, in a time that was not so simple. Mr. Tolson, a professor at Wiley College, was an exceptional teacher of those students. He had such spirit and determination to change the state’s conventional lifestyle and challenge the status...
Words: 987 - Pages: 4
...The Tragic Death at Ford’s Theater: Just or Unjust? Imagine enjoying a play on a regular evening with your family. Next thing you know, the person next to you is dead and chaos breaks out. Abraham Lincolin was assassinated mainly because of his actions and beliefs. Lincoln was well known as a fighter against slavery. He became the 16th president of the United States in 1860. He was also a military leader during the civil war and issued the Emancipation Proclamation which freed all slaves in the Confederate States (History.com). Abraham Lincoln's’ assassination was unjustified because he was an honest, role model to many,equal manbelieved in equality, and a was a revolutionary leader; however others many believed that thought he was a rebel too rebellious....
Words: 643 - Pages: 3
...Dr. King uses a great writing technique such as using a logical and emotional appeal and adding it to his writings to get people more interested. In this letter that he wrote, he did a much better job crafting an emotional appeal than a logical one. There are a few reasons behind my thinking, but overall he used both very well to grab the reader's attention using words. Word’s influence people so much and Dr. King did a great job using them to get people to see his point of view. Overall this letter is a very persuasive letter that has lots of emotion in his writing to get people to feel a certain way about the topic, in this case it is segregation and racism. The use of an emotional appeal is so ideal in Dr. King’s writing because he is...
Words: 638 - Pages: 3
...Roosevelt went on to explain that after seeing the events that had occurred in his lifetime such as the Roarin' 20's followed by The Great Depression, proved that the current Bill of Rights, had indeed protected our right the life and liberty, but had failed many in protecting our pursuit of happiness, “This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights—among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty.” however, “As our Nation has grown in size and stature, however—as our industrial economy expanded—these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness.” One of the biggest arguments that we currently have in the United States is about health care, and it was not until recently that the Affordable Care Act was put into action that many American's really had no health insurance at all. Unfortunately it has not been as successful as many would have hoped....
Words: 1253 - Pages: 6
