Difference Between Written Constitution and Unwritten Constitution Essay

Difference Between Written Constitution and Unwritten Constitution Essay.

Explain the differences between a written and an unwritten constitution. In your opinion,which is better? A constitution is a set of fundamental principles or established precedents according to which a state or other organization is governed. According to Thomas Paine’s definition towards the term ‘’constitution’’,he describes constitution as an antecedent to government,which is the creature of a constitution,and the constitution is not the act of it’s government,but the people themselves constituting the government.

A constitution may be written or unwritten.

As for the definition of written constitution,it is a formal document defining the nature of the constitutional settlement,the rules that govern the political system and the rights of citizens and government in a codified form whereas uncodified constitution is a type of constitution where the fundamental rules of government take the form of customs, usage, precedent and a variety of statutes and legal instruments.

The examples of written constitution are Malaysia Federal Constitution and American Constitution while examples of unwritten constitution include United Kingdom Constitution,New Zealand Constitution and Israel Constitution.

There are differences distinguished between a written and an unwritten constitution. Firstly,written constitution and unwritten constitution differ in the aspect of the source and originality. Written constitution or codified constitution is essentially one which is set down formally in a document.

The most obvious and common example of this is the American Constitution, brought into effect in year 1787,which is written down on a piece of parchment and lays down the foundation of American citizens’ rights as well as the powers of government. In other means, written constitution can be found in a single written source. This also can be applied to the Malaysian Federal Constitution in which you can find them in a single statute named the Federal Constitution or ‘’Perlembagaan Malaysia’’ drafted by the Reid Commisioner before Malaysia or Malaya Federation achieved independence.

In the contrary,unwritten constitution or uncodified constitution comes from a variety of sources. For example,the United Kingdom Constitution,which is an unwritten constitution, can be found in these sources including royal prerogative,conventions,common law,statute law,works of authority and the Europeon Constitution. Secondly,written constitution and unwritten constitution also differ in the aspect of flexibility. This aspect of classification was introduced by Lord Bryce in the nineteenth century.

A written constitution is a more rigid constitution and set in stone compared to unwritten constitution. A rigid written constitution allows the availability of special procedures in place in enacting,repealing or amending any given law. For example,in Malaysia’s Parliament,two third majority vote is needed among the Parliament members to allow them to amend the Federal Constitution which is the supreme law of the country as stated in Article (4) of Malaysia Federal Constitution. Therefore,rigid written constitution maintains the distinction between constitutional law and oridinary laws.

Although a rigid written constitution makes the enacted law not bearing any ambigious elements,it takes much longer time to amend a bill or a law. In the contrast,unwritten constitution or uncodified constitution is more flexible compared to written constitution. Flexible unwritten constitution allows the legislature system to makes changes quickly and appropriately in line with the scale of the problem. All laws of the constitution can be amended by a simple or ordinary law making process.

Difference Between Written Constitution and Unwritten Constitution Essay

Federal Constitution Essay

Federal Constitution Essay.

Constitution is the assembles of primary principles or established precedent. It is a precedent according to which a state or other organization is governed. The federal constitution of Malaysia is the Supreme law of Malaysia, initially called the Federation of Malaya. Differences between written constitution and none written constitution.

Written constitution is code of rules which is created and fixed in parliament by member of parliaments. It will be finalized and implement by Yang di-Pertuan Agong and Prime Minister. It is applied by Malaysian Law.

Unwritten constitution is a law which has been created by state or some group of people in order to manage some rules. It is applied by English Law. Are we allowed to amend constitutions? Briefly explain.

The constitution itself provides articles 159 and 161E how it may be amended, and in brief there are 4 ways which it may be amended 1. Some provision may be amended only by a two third absolute majority in each house of parliament but only if the conference of rulers consents 2.

Some provisions of special interest to east Malaysia , may be amended by a two third absolute majority in each house of parliament but only if the governor of the east Malaysian state conquers 3. Subject to the exceptions describe in items four below, all other provisions may be amended by two third absolute majority in each house of parliament , and this amendment do not require the consent of anybody outside the parliament . 4. Certain types of consequential amendment and amendment to three schedule may be made by a simple majority in parliament. Choose one article and do case studies ( online research )

Article number: 11 1. Every person has the right to profess and practice his religion and, subject to Clause (4), to propagate it.

2. No person shall be compelled to pay any tax the proceeds of which are specially allocated in whole or in part for the purposes of a religion other than his own.

3. Every religious group has the right – A. to manage its own religious affairs; B. to establish and maintain institutions for religious or charitable purposes; and C. to acquire and own property and hold and administer it in accordance with law.

4. State law and in respect of the Federal Territories of Kuala Lumpur and Lubuan, federal law may control or restrict the propagation of any religious doctrine or belief among persons professing the religion of Islam.

The Case

Arqam movement was established by Ashaari Muhammad in 1968 and was distinguished by its rejection of secular state and strict adherence to Islamic way of life, manifested with specific clothing. It was estimated to have approximately one hundred thousand adherents and during the strongest period of the movement they started to challenge the government in relation to right to represent Malays. That led to arrest of the leaders, declaration of movement as unlawful by the National Fatwa Council in 1994 and disbandment of it under Societies Act (1966). After the confession of the deviation from seven members including Ashaari on national television, they were released without charge but restricted in movement under other Restricted Residence Act (1993)

Federal Constitution Essay

Constitution Essay

Constitution Essay.

Edwin Messee III, in his view of the constitution, is passionate in upholding the constitution as it is. In a few words, he described the same as ‘a way of government’ towards liberty. He opined that the constitution is a means towards a government of laws and not of men. Deviation from the same would no longer be a constitutional law in any meaningful sense. The existence of the constitution as a document can never be doubted. It exists as an instrument setting forth fundamental principles, exactingly specific commandment, instructive in character to endure for years.

In this regard, Messee advocates respect on the fundamental law as it is, adherence to every part thereof as the governing and defining provisions on the relations of the government, upholding basic rights and interests. The constitution, he believes, exists for a meaning. It exists because it tells exactly what it says. It can not mean in any way other than the words written in it.

It can not admit any interpretation other than the sense of the terms and intention of the framers. It is what it says. It can not be said to mean as the spirit of the word as other constitutionalists claim.

Moreover, he said that the constitution does not look after the results of various constitutional and governmental acts but governs and sets forth a limit to such acts. Likewise, the constitution concerns itself with the process of governmental acts and not the results thereof. Thus, it can not dictate Congress what specific laws to implement but merely defines the limits for which Congress has to base the legislative acts. In this way also, the constitution does not conform itself to societal changes, evolution of culture and the like.

It remains as it was when originally drafted. Element of flexibility is absent. The constitution denotes a distribution of powers among the various branches with the end in view of securing liberty. Thus, interpretation of the provisions therein must be strictly construed in accordance with the letters thereof. Messee quoted the statement of the high court in the case of Marbury vs. Madison saying that the principles in the constitution are ‘fundamental and permanent and except for formal amendment unchangeable.

This signifies that the constitution is not adoptive to change. It shall remain as originally drafted for years and shall not be subject to amendment at the whims of Congress or the demands of the people unless by virtue of the appropriate constitutional provision. The constitution is the supreme law and from which everything follows. It is the spring from which the water flows and is the leg for which the government relies. While Messee sticks to the strict interpretation of the constitution and viewed its application as one being supreme, Brennan holds otherwise.

Brennan viewed the constitution as something flexibility. It corresponds to the needs of the public and of the status of the state. In this regard, it is viewed that any doubt in the interpretation of the provisions thereof shall be resolved in favor of the spirit in which they are enacted. That is, such interpretation which corresponds to the current status or condition of society shall prevail. While Messee views it as exactingly specific, Brennan opines specificity should not mean its inapplication because its essence shall be proved futile.

The scope of its application is wide and thus requires a liberal interpretation. Critical analysis I shall resolve to favor the arguments posited by Messee. In an ordinary layman’s point of view, the constitution exists as a spring board for which the legislative acts are derived. It simply is the basis for which the legislative enactments are made. A legislative enactment thus has to conform to the constitution otherwise, it will be struck down as null and void. On the other hand, the nature of the constitution is simply a limitation on the state’s power.

So vast is the power of the state that it can afford to abuse the fundamental and basic rights of the citizens if not with the advent of the constitution. Being a limitation, it sets boundaries within which the judiciary is to exercise its power, Congress to enact specific laws for public interest and the Executive to implement the law. The principles embodied in the constitution are supreme in themselves. They remain as they are originally drafted because they are reflective of the views, beliefs, culture and ideals of the state.

The practices and traditions may have gone but the ideals shall remain as they are. Messee posited that the constitution looks at the process of government and does not take into account the results of a governmental act. I adhere to his statement. The role of the constitution vis a vis the legislative enactments simply delineates the line between the two. The constitution could not have been considered the most supreme of all laws of the land had there been no laws enacted on the basis of the constitutional provisions.

It can be noted that various laws, rules and regulations, administrative orders, resolutions implemented in consonance and in pursuance to the provisions therein. By this virtue, the nature of the constitution is strengthened and respect to it is heightened. Premises considered, I shall likewise adhere to the opinion posited by Messee on the strict interpretation of the provisions of the constitution. The rule in statutory construction is that when the provisions of a law are clear, construction shall not be resorted to.

Any ambiguity therein, the provision shall be construed in accordance with the intention of the makers therein. This same rule in statutory construction can not be made inapplicable with respect to any ambiguity in the provisions of the constitution. A liberal construction of the constitution may lead to certain consequences. Although flexibility or adoptability is the theme of the present day rule, stability is still the basic policy. There can be no stability should there be no leg to stand on. The constitution is that foundation from which society is allowed and is better able to adapt to the ever changing environment.

The needs of society may have changed, yet it is but important that the ideals, the culture and values be upheld. Further, the law must have the teeth to be credible and effective. This is the element of control. While statutes may easily be repealed, abrogated or amended, the constitution is not. Strict compliance with the provisions therein is necessary; otherwise, the same shall remain unchanged. A foundation which goes with the flow of the music is not a foundation at all. A foundation is one which should be open to change but not changeable in itself.

There could be no basic rules of procedure from which change can formally be made, whether in the social, religious or commercial dealings should there be no fixed grounds from which such change shall be based. Flexibility is not within the realm of the constitution but is within the realm of the present statutes, administrative orders, ordinances and resolutions. The latter type is the ones intended to respond to the needs and demands of the people which require no other qualification except to be in conformity with the fundamental law.

While Brennan gives the implication that flexibility is favorable to be able to respond to the needs of society, this can better be answered by simply abrogating, amending or repealing some present statutes, rules, regulations, administration rules, resolutions or ordinances as the case may be. More importantly, so huge are the number of citizens in a state, so vast is the power of the state, so powerful is the government to such an extent that control is highly necessary.

Control over the people, over the state, the government within a territory can only be obtained when there is that fundamental law which is credible. Statutory enactments are not a guarantee for the state and the governing body thereof to take control with everything because the implementation thereof may be influenced by those in the seat of power or at the least may be abused by them. It can be noted however that whatever and however the constitution may be interpreted, the same may still be influenced by those who are in the seat of governance.

Whatever interpretation is given on the constitution as Messee pointed out has been the subject of so many debates. Thus, it is not something to wonder should continuous debates emerge. It is of personal opinion however that so long as the interest of the public is served, the requirement for the government to better serve the society is met. For ordinary laymen this is what is important. Let the issue of interpretation and application be left to the hands of the constitutionalists and law makers for the wisdom is in their hands.

You may also be interested in the following: bundle of compromises

Constitution Essay

Second Amendment Essay

Second Amendment Essay.

The debate over the Second Amendment is an ongoing one. Select appropriate sources and research the following: 1. What does the Constitution say about the right to bear arms? 2. What is the Supreme Court’s position on the Second Amendment? 3. What is the Brady Law and what impact has it had on gun control issues? 4. Has the Second Amendment undergone the Incorporation process? If not, why not? Answer all questions. Your report must be at least 300 words. List all web resources and referenced materials that were used.

You must use the APA citation style The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. ” The layman’s meaning of militia is citizen soldiers. The early American’s believed that a militia was a better security to their liberties than a permanent army. Today, the word militia can be associated with the National Guard.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2010 that state and local governments were required to recognize an individual right to possess firearms. The court also recognized that laws to prohibit gun possession by felons and the mentally ill were acceptable and so were laws banning guns from schools, government buildings and laws regulating gun sales. This ruling in 2010 was brought to the Supreme Court because of a Chicago law that banned almost all handguns to individuals, which many believed denied them of their so-called Constitutional right to bear arms.

Second Amendment Essay

Texas Constitution Essay

Texas Constitution Essay.

The Texas Constitution of 1876 is very detailed and affects the citizens of Texas in several ways. In many ways I think that the Texas Constitution is more reliable, and in a sense, better than the U. S. Constitution. There are less accessible loopholes in the Texas Constitution and it seems to be more specific in its laws and regulations. It puts rights first and deals with local and state matters not covered in the U. S. Constitution.

The state of Texas has had six constitutions.

The constitution that took effect on February 15, 1876 is the one that is still currently used today. The Texas Constitution is the second longest constitution in the United States, and one of the oldest still in effect. Since the constitution has been adopted it has been amended 439 times and consists of seventeen amendments. This constitution replaced the current constitution of 1869 and was meant to decentralize the state of Texas.

They wanted all officials elected for shorter terms and lower salaries, abolition of voter registration, local control of schools, severely limited powers for both the legislature and the governor, low taxation and state expenditures, strict control over corporations, and land subsidies for railroads.

The government had now been split up into three branches; the executive branch, the legislative branch and the judicial branch. The Texas Constitution began with a Bill of Rights. This is another thing that I like about it because unlike the U. S. Constitution it puts the rights of the people first.

The Bill of Rights declared that Texas was a free and independent state, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, that all free men have equal rights, and that the writ of habeas corpus could not be suspended or unduly delayed. It forbid religious tests for office, unreasonable searches, and imprisonment for debt. It also guaranteed liberty of speech and press, the right of the accused to obtain bail and to be tried by a jury, and the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.

Many people will argue that the Texas Constitution is too lengthy and has too much detail to it. Well maybe it is lengthy, maybe it does have a little too much detail on certain rules and regulations but its lasted this long and nobody has yet to successfully change it so there must be something right about it. Several changes have been made to it though seeing how many changes in technology have advanced the way we live. The original Texas Constitution was based around a farm economy and was meant for and to protect the rights of the rural citizens seeing how that was what Texas was known for in that time.

Texas Constitution Essay

The Eighth Amendment and Lethal Injection Essay

The Eighth Amendment and Lethal Injection Essay.

According to the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution, Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. (Constitution) Essentially that means that fines that are not in alignment with the crime cannot be charged and that a punishment that is too painful and unjust cannot be given to a convicted person. The United States of America allows for individual stated to determine whether the death penalty is appropriate and legal. Out of fifty states in the United States, thirty-four have capital punishment

First, one must answer the question of what is cruel and unusual punishment.

I do not know of anything that could be crueler that taking someone’s life. It is true that capital punishment is only used in capital offenses, but the Constitution does not say nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted unless they have committed a capital offense. If it were an amendment that would allow for it to apply to capital offensive, that would be different.

I would still not agree with it morally, however, I am for supporting the Constitution.

It is contradictory to say that the government can take a life yet it cannot inflict cruel and unusual punishment. Death is very serious. I know that I have just stated the obvious, but it is something that can ever be taken back. If it is proven that there was a mistake made in the case of a convicted person that is executed, then it cannot be taken back. Death is forever. It is important that every citizen of the United States takes the time to just think about forever. It is a concept that is hard, if not impossible to grasp, but it is worth the time to do it. What if you were a person on death row?

You would want those who chose to take your life to realize just exactly what they were doing. Since DNA testing has been admissible in court, one hundred and thirty-six cases have been overturned because it was proven that the convicted person was innocent. In most cases, many years of the convicted were robbed from them. That was time that cannot be recovered. Now we must wonder how many have been put to death that were innocent. I am mortified by the thought. It is one thing to rob someone of years of their life, but it is so much worse to take a life and then realize that a mistake was made.

If the Constitution says that it is against the law to inflict cruel and unusual punishment, then it must be taken into account that to execute an innocent person would have to be the cruelest thing that could ever happen. Second is the fact that there are many studies that prove that the most popular method of execution in the United States is lethal injection. While it is more humane than the electric chair, the gas chamber, hanging, and etc, there are many studies that prove that it is still an extremely painful way to die.

They found that the levels of anesthetic sodium thiopental in the blood of inmates were low enough that they may have experienced pain. (Reilly) Again, there are some who truly believe that justice can be served by administering pain and death, but that is not what the U. S. Constitution says. In April of 2007, a Florida execution case made headlines around the world when it took thirty-four minutes to execute Angel Diaz. He was gasping for air for 11 minutes. Twenty-six minutes into the procedure, Diaz’s body suddenly jolted.

He was given a second round of drugs after the execution team observed that the first round had failed to kill him. He was finally pronounced dead by a hooded physician 34 minutes after the execution began. (Groner) That is an uncomfortable image to have in our minds, but it is fact and we as American citizens cannot afford to ignore it. It really happened and it completely went against what the Constitution stated. This means it was illegal to kill Diaz in the manner in which he was executed. Has our country gotten to the point that it breaks the law to punish people who break the law? It does not make sense.

No one will argue that Diaz was a murderer and deserved to be punished, but there were other ways that were not cruel and unusual like life in prison without the possibility of parole. There have been other cases where the convicted person did not die easily. In another recent execution in Ohio, witnesses were treated to the horrifying spectacle of an inmate who did not die when the drugs were administered. In this case, three to four minutes into the execution, the inmate raised his head off the table and said, “It don’t work, it don’t work. ” (Groner) So the idea that Diaz’s case was isolated in not true.

He was the only one that has taken thirty-four minutes to die, but how long is too long? In fact, two states, Florida and California, have halted their executions until this can be resolved. Even proponents of the death penalty like Governor Jeb Bush of Florida agree that it is cruel and humane to allow a person to suffer as Diaz did. Finally, it is not economically sound to administer any form of execution. While the actual process is cheap, the cost of a trial where the death penalty is considered last much longer and cost close to double of that for one where it is not considered.

The right to due process is guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Therefore, a person who has been sentenced to death has many options for appeals. This is an extremely expensive process that cost tax payers millions of dollars for each person on death row. It is expensive to keep a prisoner incarcerated for life, but it is half the cost of the complete process of an execution because the prisoner will likely spend many years in prison even if the execution is eventually carried out.

While the death penalty and lethal injection are legal in thirty-four of the fifty states of the United States, it is contradictory to the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. It is the ultimate oxymoron for a document to state that something such as the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment is wrong, and then to allow individual states to legally administer capital punishment. It is not legal to beat a prisoner, yet one’s life can be taken in a painful way, and that is legal. Before the next person is executed in this country, each individual citizen should stop and think about what the Constitution really says.

The Eighth Amendment and Lethal Injection Essay

Is Our Constitution Still Relevant Essay

Is Our Constitution Still Relevant Essay.

The U.S. Constitution is a very important document that people, especially immigrants, love. There are many reasons for this, but one main obvious reason is that the Constitution gives freedom to people who enter America. Many of those freedoms are not offered in a lot of countries around the world and that’s why immigrants and refugees flee to a country like the United States.

The first main reason why the Constitution is very important is because it gives freedom of religion to its people of the U.

S. A. Rights like this lets people believe in whatever they want to believe in and lets them live their lives to the fullest without getting discriminated by other people or the government.

The second main reason why the Constitution is very important is because it gives freedom of speech to its people of the U.S. People always like to express their feelings whether it may be good or bad, but some countries ban the right and create anger throughout the nation.

That’s why the Constitution allows for the freedom of speech and lets people express their feelings without being judged or being captured by government or law enforcement officials.

The third and last main reason why the Constitution is very important is because it gives freedom of press to its people of the U.S. The newspaper is always a great way to find out what’s going on locally or nationally. But in some nations the newspaper is always filled with lies and puts whatever the government wants them to put. But in the United States you can write whatever you want whenever you want without being judged by your opinion. That’s why you have a lot of magazine companies who write whatever they want about people or celebrities and help fuel the economy since people will buy to read it.

The U.S. Constitution is a very important document that people, especially immigrants, love. It will always remain as an important document, because of all the rights it offers to its people. If it weren’t for the U.S. Constitution then people in the United States wouldn’t be able to enjoy their happy and careless lifestyles everyday without being interfered by the government or other officials.

Is Our Constitution Still Relevant Essay

Amendment vs. Patriot Act Essay

Amendment vs. Patriot Act Essay.

It is dangerous world when you’re not safe in your own home. Thieves and robbers are not the suspects anymore; instead it’s the authorities that take their place in terrorizing your mind and body. The policing authorities have been given a free pass to do as they please to put fear in the nation’s eyes.

With the implementation of acts such as the Patriot Act, the due process to investigate an individual was taken out of the question.

The right guaranteed by the constitution of America to have proper documentation and proof to investigate any wrong doing, is not practiced anymore. Every citizen has the right to have search and seizures regulated as to give proper checks and balances to the police. However that is not the case in the present United States.

The Fourth Amendment in its drafted form, states “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

” It was drafted as a reaction to British general warrants, in which the British King gave free hand to British law enforcement official to search virtually any home they liked, at any time they preferred, for any reason or for no reason at all.

This was an especially unpopular concept in the colonies. Now looking enactment of the Patriot Act, one should wonder, how is any different than what British king did to the US Colonies? It is agreed that the events of September 11th were a horrific travesty that shall live in our memories forever. They were attacks from an outside enemy; however the consequences have been put on the people of this nation. With the increased security in place, the government of this country implemented the Patriot Act.

The Patriot Act, to put it simply allows the authorities to investigate and seize anything without proper permission and based on mere suspicion. It is a direct violation the 4th amendment of the constitution. Every citizen is given protection for their civil liberties under the Bill of Rights and number four on that list insures their safety in the confines of their property. Of course I understand that illegal activities have to be prevented as a safety measure to the public but proper investigation is needed to prove even if such actions exist.

With the process to make the Patriot Act permanent, they might as well throw out the Bill of Rights. Now let us look at how the Patriot Act volatiles the 4 amendment. As per American Civil Liberties Union, below are some of the key cases: 1. The section 218 (Intelligence Searches) of Patriot Act expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information.

The section 214 (Trap and trace searches) expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects “addressing” information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content. . The FBI now does not even have to show a reasonable suspicion that the records are related to criminal activity, much less the requirement for “probable cause” that is listed in the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. This violates the Fourth Amendment, which says the government cannot conduct a search without obtaining a warrant and showing probable cause to believe that the person has committed or will commit a crime. 4. For the longest time, the US government, by law was not allowed to go into citizens’ property without prior legal notice, and was required to show the legal notice before it executes a search.

This principle has been identified as a part of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. 5. Unfortunately, the Patriot Act unconstitutionally amends the law to allow the government to conduct searches without notifying the citizens. What this means is that the governmental agencies can enter a house, apartment or office with a search warrant when the occupants are away, search through their property, take photographs, and in some cases even confiscate their property. . What is also interesting is that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to secretly conduct a physical search or wiretap on American citizens to obtain evidence of crime without providing probable cause, as the Fourth Amendment requires. 7. An alarming thing to note, as per ACLU, “Under the Patriot Act any Pen Register/ Trap Trace (PR/TT) orders issued by a judge are no longer valid only in that judge’s jurisdiction, but can be made valid anywhere in the United States.

This ‘nationwide service’ further marginalizes the role of the judiciary, because a judge cannot meaningfully monitor the extent to which his or her order is being used. In addition, this provision authorizes the equivalent of a blank warrant: the court issues the order, and the law enforcement agent fills in the places to be searched. That is a direct violation of the Fourth Amendment’s explicit requirement that warrants be written “particularly describing the place to be searched. ” Since its inception, United States of America has always been seen as the beacon of hope, freedom, and prosperity around the globe.

The concept of equality, right to own property, right to free speech, and freedom to practice preferred religion was alien concepts in the pre-USA world. The establishment and guarantee of basic human rights has been for so long the appeal for people around the world; intellectuals, impoverished, suppressed, rich, businessmen, craftsmen, etc. to settle in US. This marvelous achievement, unparalleled in the history of mankind, has been deeply tarnished by the implementation of the Patriot Act which negates our some of key rights as guaranteed by 4th amendment.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation of this country and if we learn anything from experience a structure can not stand without a strong foundation. This country, I fear is in amidst of becoming a policing nation just like the old Soviet Nation, where the police had the power to do as they wished. I hope the liberties this nation offered its people are not forgotten.

Amendment vs. Patriot Act Essay

America’s Most Shameful Moment Essay

America’s Most Shameful Moment Essay.

America’s Most Shameful Moment President Jackson ordered Indian removal despite the Constitution, and this was very controversial between the Native Americans, general public, and law makers. Andrew Jackson most certainly did not have the right to order the removal of the Native Americans. Beside from ethics, his own government branch of the Supreme Court declared it illegal. John Marshall decided that the Cherokees had their own nation, and it would be wrong for the United States to claim the land of the Cherokee their own.

Jackson’s people, the people of the United States felt that they had the right to deal with the land however they pleased, but that was just opinion. Legally, he did not have the right to force Indian removal. Personally, I feel that Andrew Jackson should not have removed the Native Americans. The American Indians were on the land first, and were strongly attached to their land in a religious sense. The Indians did not at all want to “trade lands”.

Jackson acted like a bigot and a bully, forcing out the natives because he felt that they couldn’t have used the land as well as the civilized whites.

Without the Indian Removal Act, the U. S. would possibly be much smaller, poorer, and weaker as a nation. Economically, obviously, Jackson did the right thing. Ethically, though which really counts, it was an atrocious, horrible, nasty decision. Jackson should never have removed the Native Americans, and Americans today should be ashamed of this decision. Jackson argued that unless the Supreme Court could keep Indian removal from happening, it will happen anyway, with his approval. his proves that Andrew Jackson strongly felt that states should hold jurisdiction over the federal government.

He believed in a small federal government. Jackson felt that if the state of Georgia wanted to do the opposite of the law of the Supreme Court, then they have the right to. Jackson believed in keeping the federal government small, and was even willing to break a law and the Constitution to support his belief in government and U. S. power over Native Americans.

America’s Most Shameful Moment Essay