Should American Gun Laws Be Reformed Essay

Should American Gun Laws Be Reformed Essay.

America is under ever mounting pressure to reform its gun laws. Overall, 337,960 gun related crimes and 31,000 firearms deaths a year results in America having the highest rate of firearm crime and death in the western world. America’s gun violence is so remarkably high for such a wealthy nation. Continuous mass shootings in schools and workplaces, most recent of which was the Sandy Hook school shooting on December 14 2012, means there is constant political debate over if/how the government should tackle gun violence.

Many argue that there should be tighter checks on people purchasing guns, while the NRA and gun advocates claim that the Second Amendment guarantees each citizen an absolute right to “bear arms”. Aims 1. I aim to find out what the current law is on carrying a firearm in the USA. 2. I aim to compare gun laws and gun crime in the USA to countries with similar levels of gun ownership. 3. I aim to discuss if there are effective ways to reduce gun violence in the USA whilst retaining the right to bear arms.

USA gun laws

The Second Amendment is the part of the US Bill of Rights that protects the right of US citizens to keep and bear arms, it reads: “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. ” (1791) Gun laws vary in the USA between different states. Stricter states like California require a Handgun Safety Certificate for handgun purchases, obtained by passing a written test; and short-barrelled shotguns and rifles are prohibited.

By contrast, states like Arizona let any adult who is not a “prohibited possessor” openly carry a loaded firearm. “Self-defence” is a legitimate reason to carry a gun in public nationwide. All states have gun laws that are more relaxed than British law. Comparing Countries The US has the highest rates of gun ownership in the world, 88. 8 guns per 100 people (2007). The number two country, Yemen, has significantly fewer guns with 54. 8 guns per 100 people. This shows how separated the US is from the rest of the world in terms of gun ownership.

It also makes it hard to directly compare the USA to a country with similar gun ownership rates. Finland compared to the USA Finland has the 4th highest firearm ownership worldwide; 45. 3 guns per 100 people, with only Switzerland (45. 7), Yemen (54. 8) and America (88. 8) with higher rates of gun ownership. However, where Finland differentiates itself from America (and Yemen) is that it has comparatively low levels of gun crimes and deaths. The small arms survey (2007) shows that 60% of murders in the USA are gun-related whilst in Finland only 19. % of murders involve a gun. Last year alone America suffered seven mass shootings; Finland, just one. Gun ownership in Finland is much more regulated than it is in the US. Firearms can only be obtained with an acquisition license, which can be applied for from the local police. Guns must be stored in a locked space or otherwise with vital parts removed and separated. They may be carried only when they are transported from their place of storage to the place of use (eg: shooting range).

Aside from police and military personnel, only security guards with closely defined working conditions, special training and a permit are allowed to carry a loaded gun in public places. Self-defence is not a valid reason to own a gun. The firearms certificate may be cancelled if a person has committed any crimes. Physical and mental problems or reckless behaviour are also valid grounds for cancelling the certificate. A major question is whether gun-control laws reduce crime. It would seem that Finland shows this to be true. Tighter gun control seemingly drastically reduces gun crime.

Are restrictive gun laws the reason that Finland has a much lower rate of gun crime than the USA? Or are there other major factors? Israel compared to the USA Although Israel has seemingly very tight laws on firearm ownership, it is a country that is very heavily armed due to compulsory military service and armed security guards in every school and most workplaces; yet they rarely use their guns to shoot each other. Many men and women openly carry firearms while carrying out day-to-day activities in Israel, but non-political mass killings there are unheard of.

In Israel guns for personal use are theoretically hard to legally obtain. Assault rifles are banned, registration is necessary, and a whole system of checks and requirements are in place to keep weapons out of the wrong hands. Yet, gaps in the system and non-thorough checks make it easy for nearly anyone to come up with a legal excuse to own a gun (even though not many do). Despite being in a constant cold war, only 58 Israelis were murdered by guns last year, compared with 10,728 Americans. Israel hasn’t even got a high percentage of gun related murders; 11. 7%. Lower than both Finland and the USA.

This can’t be down to heavy gun restriction, because Israel is a country where everyone; not only knows how to use a gun effectively due to compulsory, excessive military training, but, every single citizen has almost immediate direct access to a gun. Surely, any Israeli intending to murder someone, would instinctively choose a gun as their weapon? So, why is it that, in one of the only countries in the world that makes it compulsory for every eighteen year old to spend 3 years learning how to shoot to kill, we see some of the lowest levels of gun crime worldwide?

In Israel, guns are not toys to be used as displays, or for threatening suspicious people walking down the street. They are necessary security measures against terrorism for the public’s safety. When everyone has a gun, guns are no longer seen as talismans for the weak, frightened, and unstable, seeking a sense of security, but as killing machines that are to be handled with the utmost caution and care, used solely for serious protection. Can the USA reduce gun violence? Israel is a prime example of a society that has a large amount of armed civilians in public places, yet almost no gun crime.

This is a direct result of its gun culture. Its attitude towards guns and the knowledge every adult holds; how to handle and use a gun correctly, translates to a very responsible society. A similar model can be seen in Finland. Responsible gun carrying adults, with appropriate knowledge, who understand the uses and dangers or guns, result in low levels of gun crime and a safer society. Similar attitudes towards guns can also be seen in Switzerland (also with compulsory military service. ), Sweden and Norway all of which are in the top 12 countries for gun ownership yet all have far lower rates of gun crime than the USA.

Changing gun culture in the US would be a realistic place to start trying to reduce violence, even though it may be costly. This would be a legitimate and possibly more effective alternative to heavily decreasing the number of guns in public ownership. Conclusion To be sure, shooting rampages have occurred in the past years in Germany, Norway, Finland, Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom, but nowhere as costly or numerous as in the USA. This is largely down to America’s gun culture which needs to be changed if America wants to end mass shootings and decrease its gun crime.

Following Israel’s example and educating gun owners about their rights and responsibilities, so as to create a culture of sensible and mindful gun ownership. If the US government were to spend money educating gun owners about the uses and dangers of guns (which they already do with gun carrying police officers), they would start to create a more stable society. America’s gun culture is what needs to change, not its ownership rates, if people want to own firearms and the government permits it; it’s the government’s responsibility to make sure the owner is capable of handling a gun safely, so that they don’t infringe on others citizen’s life.

This solution would not mean a drastic reduction of citizens owning guns. Rather, it would encourage them to use them safely, with caution and respect. This has the direct intention of reducing accidental injuries and crime alike. Gun ownership isn’t the problem. People aiming guns at each other is. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. America needs to change to attitudes of its people fast, before more of them die.

Should American Gun Laws Be Reformed Essay

Case Digests And Political Law Essay

Case Digests And Political Law Essay.

Facts: Petitioner was charged with violation of Section 2 (4) of the revised securities act. Respondent filed to cancel the passport of the petitioner and to issue a hold departure order. The RTC ordered the DFA to cancel petitioner’s passport, based on the finding that the petitioner has not been arraigned and there was evidence to show that the accused has left the country with out the knowledge and the permission of the court.

Issue: Whether or Not the right to travel may be impaired by order of the court.

Held: The bail bond posted by petitioner has been cancelled and warrant of arrest has been issued by reason that he failed to appear at his arraignments. There is a valid restriction on the right to travel, it is imposed that the accused must make himself available whenever the court requires his presence. A person facing criminal charges may be restrained by the Court from leaving the country or, if abroad, compelled to return (Constitutional Law, Cruz, Isagani A.

, 1987 Edition, p. 138). So it is also that “An accused released on bail may be re-arrested without the necessity of a warrant if he attempts to depart from the Philippines without prior permission of the Court where the case is pending (ibid., Sec. 20 [2nd par. ]).

Article III, Section 6 of the 1987 Constitution should be interpreted to mean that while the liberty of travel may be impaired even without Court Order, the appropriate executive officers or administrative authorities are not armed with arbitrary discretion to impose limitations. They can impose limits only on the basis of “national security, public safety, or public health” and “as may be provided by law,” a limitive phrase which did not appear in the 1973 text (The Constitution, Bernas, Joaquin G.,S.J., Vol. I, First Edition, 1987, p. 263). Apparently, the phraseology in the 1987 Constitution was a reaction to the ban on international travel imposed under the previous regime when there was a Travel Processing Center, which issued certificates of eligibility to travel upon application of an interested party (See Salonga vs. Hermoso & Travel Processing Center, No. 53622, 25 April 1980, 97 SCRA 121).

Holding an accused in a criminal case within the reach of the Courts by preventing his departure from the Philippines must be considered as a valid restriction on his right to travel so that he may be dealt with in accordance with law. The offended party in any criminal proceeding is the People of the Philippines. It is to their best interest that criminal prosecutions should run their course and proceed to finality without undue delay, with an accused holding himself amenable at all times to Court Orders and processes

Case Digests And Political Law Essay

The Unspoken Laws Essay

The Unspoken Laws Essay.

The conceptualization of sexual, religious, and gendered borders has served to write the human standard of living and the societal roles that we have incorporated into our culture to accept as the social norm. These unspoken laws are the architecture to our socio-cultural environment. These laws represent the cement that has carefully bonded the male-female heteronormative gender role, the pre-inclined human morality given by religion, and sexual identity to be something that is easily definable by the masses. Arturo Islas in The Rain God defines Mexican culture by creating characters that exemplify and embody the stereotypes and the figurative borders of sexuality, religion, and gender.

Throughout The Rain God Arturo Islas tells the story of the Angel family- a family made up of strong characters such as Miguel Grande and Mama Chona. Both Miguel Grande and Mama Chona strongly embody the female-male gender role while personifying the cultural borders that Miguel Chico encounters as he develops into an adult. Miguel Grande illustrates machismo as he is described as the traditional patriarch of the Angel Family.

Mama Chona takes on the matriarch role that holds the Angel Family together all the while as she is conflicted to accept the Indigenous and Chicano identities that make her whole. Maria- the nursemaid is a symbol for the religious freedom Miguel Chico grows up searching for. She herself strays off Roman Catholicism and becomes a Seventh Day Adventist. Maria’s influences of another form of thinking impacts Miguel Chico as he furthers into interpreting the reality encircling his childhood.

Arturo Islas carefully constructs the matriarch role in Hispanic culture as Mama Chona. Her character is a clear example of the generational struggle faced by Mother Chonas alike of other Mexican Families living in the Southwest Texas/ Mexico border seeking out lead their kin out of the “bad” life. Miguel Chico reminiscing over a family picture in his desk area describes, “Mama Chona is wearing a black ankle-length dress with a white lace collar and he is in a short-sleeved light colored summer suit with short pants…the camera has captured them in flight from one world to the next.” (Islas, 3-4). This quote expatiates the generational gap faced between the Angel family and Miguel Chico. Narratively, it also serves as foreshadowing for Miguel Chico straining off the “correct” path, that is not staying and submitting to the very literal and figurative geographical borders of religion, sex, and gender found in the Southwest.

Miguel Chico does this by earning his acceptance to a prestigious University, moving to San Fransisco, and becoming the free thinking individual that he is by heart. With traditional catholic point of views and a ridged sense of what sexuality is Miguel Grande refuses to accept any other form of raising his child, other than the one he’s been conditioned to accept throughout his lifetime. “‘Apologize to your father for playing with dolls,’ Juanita said to Miguel Chico. He did not understand why he needed to say he was sorry. When his father was not there, his mother permitted him to play with them.” (Islas, 16) Miguel Chico is the queer child who questions religion and the male role that is placed on him by his social environment. Arturo Islas crafts these polar identities to express the very literal border of culture and sexuality that Miguel Chico encounters and battles with as he matures into an adult.

Whilst growing up nursemaid Maria attempts to instill the morals and allegories of a religious context into Miguel Chico. Although, Miguel Chico receives the religious barrage from both ends of the spectrum- the mother and the nursemaid, Miguel Chico questions the validity of the information he waveringly accepts at the time. “Miguel Chico learned that when he asked Maria a difficult question she would remain silent, then choose a biblical passage that illustrated the terrible power of God the Father’s wrath.” (Islas, 17). Moreover, Maria explores another branch of Christianity by being a Seventh Day Adventist, her influences of denying another religion impacts Miguel Chico and in the end lends to his rejection of religion over all, as he sees the influence of another interpretation of “truth”.

Furthermore, as Miguel Chico walks through the journey of adulthood he becomes more aware of the social and personal constraints the borders of religion, sex, and gender present to his growth as an individual though throughout this time he accepts that he is a determinable extension of them both, Maria- the nursemaid and Mother Chona the Angel Family’s Matriarch. “…the way a seed continues to be part of a plant after it has assumed its own form which does not at all resemble it’s origin, but which nevertheless, is determined by it. He had survived severe pruning and wondered if human beings, unlike plants can water themselves.” (Islas, 25-26). Throughout the passage Miguel Chico asserts his independence from all the borders introduced by his family, the border that his persona has been forced to fit in in consequence of a socially accepted mold.

Later in The Rain God it is learned that Mama Chona becomes ill. At this time Miguel Chico visits and is confronted with questions concerning his sexuality and relationship status, more significantly by his cousins. It is strange to them that he is neither married, nor in a stable relationship with a woman. Despite the suspicion behind his sexuality he verifies the value he has for knowledge. He conjures up the idea that perhaps he had survived the plucking of his personal growth to tell the stories of people similar to Maria and Mother Chona.

Conclusively, Miguel Chico ascertains that he in fact does have a long way to go throughout his journey of self-discovery, along the way he pieces together the identity that makes him whole. These pieces all influenced by the characters in his life, significantly, Mother Chona and Maria. He accepts the fact he alike Mother Chona prefers to disregard facts to assume motives, although unlike Maria, Miguel Chico longed to look at persons and their motives separately from an “earthly, rather than otherworldly, point of view” (Islas, 28).

Miguel Chico’s future is undetermined at this point and he is okay with that reality but he now is comfortable with the concept that he does not have to live in the haziness of the garden he has been rooted to be part of. Miguel Chico can stray off the pre-determined path given to him and still be his own after appreciating the soil that nurtured him into the free thinking individual that he is.

Works Cited

Islas, Arturo. The Rain God: A Desert Tale. Palo Alto: Alexandrian, 1984. Print.

The Unspoken Laws Essay

Pit Bull Law In Ontario Essay

Pit Bull Law In Ontario Essay.

The pit bull law is a touch and go law, it is one of those laws that doesn’t get enforced until this dog actually does something that would get it attention of the police, in which case they would take your pit bull away from you and put it down. Most people blame the bad reputation of pit bulls on bad owners, Pit bulls have been known as bad dogs since criminals started adopting them in the 70’s-80’s and using them in illegal dog fights and self defense dogs to protect drugs and money usually, pit bulls are very intimidating dogs that’s why they where chosen for all this stuff.

Tons of sources and people all say that pit bulls make amazing family dogs, numerous people say that the key to a good dog is a good and loving owner, and make a great family dog that are good with kids and other animals only if trained right.

The law is also hurting people too, there are a lot of pit bull breeders that are now not legally aloud to breed the only breed they know how to breed which is a violation of there rights. The government cant make you get rid of a pit bull you already own but there are very strict guidelines as to take care and keep these dogs away from society. The bill should be appealed, all dogs bite. Just these dogs need special attention just like every other dog to be a good dog.

First of all the big reason why there is a ban on pit bull breeding and ownership of pit bulls is because of the bad reputation that they have accumulated over the past 40 or so years one of the first uses of the pit bull was to fight bears and bulls and stuff and people used that as entertainment, after that got banned for being rules as cruel to animals they came up with a new sport for the dogs which was to pin them up against each other in a pit for a fight to the death and people would bid money on the winners and ect… the dogs where bred to kill. But it was made very illegal very fast and banned in all 52 states and Canada. That breed was very dangerous, but since the 80’s making that killer breed was illegal so that pure killing machine isn’t really around anymore but you cant take it all out of the gene, but it can be easily controlled with proper training and a loving owner.

But that’s not always the case bad people do get there hands on these dogs to often and treat them with no respect, love or care and give don’t them proper obedience training. “Many of the pit bull attacks are due to a skyrocketing number of poorly bred and badly trained dogs raised by backyard breeders, who are trying to cash in on the pit bull’s growing reputation as a cheap, but deadly effective guard dog, particularly in urban areas.” This is a quote from The Houston Chronicle placing the blame almost solely on the humans. Before the 80’s pit bull attacks where almost unheard of in fact there where an American icon along with bull dogs. Pit bulls where used on military poster for the first world war and in other posters, the pit bull was in a lot of households across America.

The second topic would be how this law in Ontario has affected people’s jobs in breeding. Because of the new law breeders that have perfected there breed and only have knowledge in the pit bull breed, now that that has been taken away from them it is violating there rights as people, they have been stripped of there jobs because of an unfair law that has no reason to even be a law. Ontario breeders argue the ban violates breeders’ constitutional rights. Hundreds of supporters of pit bull-type dogs gathered in front of the provincial legislature to protest.

Other supporters, including the American Staffordshire Club of Canada, say that Ontario’s law is so vague and unscientific that it will affect many animals that shouldn’t be banned. In a widely reported case, Toronto police fired more than a dozen bullets into two pit bulls that had turned on the man who was walking them as a favor for a friend. In another in London, Ont., a woman and her seven-year-old son watched in horror as a pit bull latched onto her husband’s arm as he tried to keep the family puppy out of the dog’s reach. While some breeders are fighting the ban, others are leaving the province.

Pit bulls aren’t really an identifiable breed, added Hillier, so the law only provides a physical description of dogs, which he said could be applied to many breeds. The vague description of pit bulls in the legislation — which speaks of broad shoulders, short hair and a wide forehead Pit bull bans are “ridiculous and cruel,” she added, and have already been lifted in other provinces, many U.S. states and countries around the world. Everyone knows it’s the deed, not the breed, that’s the problem. We know that German shepherds, we know that Labrador retrievers, we know that Chihuahuas are as capable of biting, or more capable of biting, as so-called pit bulls.

What is trying to be said here is that there is no actually law on the breed of pit bulls its just a description and a very vague one at that, This law is very un organized, pit bulls are getting shipped out of Ontario and being pit down even when there not full pit bulls, they are mixes that fit the description. The original Bill 132 was passed on March 1, 2005, and received Royal Assent on March 9, 2005.The Bill prohibits individuals from owning, breeding, transferring, importing or abandoning pit bulls. Now that its 2012 the law has almost been considered being lifted completely it has in other provinces, Ontario is basically the only province that has not lifted it in Canada, and hopefully they let up soon, its unfair to all the breeders and pit bull lovers out there.

In conclusion the Pit Bull has had a bad reputation since the mid 19 hundreds between the illegal dog fights and all the gangsters and terrible breeders using these dogs for attack dogs and to protect drugs, and money, and for intimidation, and ect. But truth is that killer breed has been gone for awhile now, its basically just mixes out there from bad breeders with bad owners, there is no such thing as a “bad” dog, every dog is capable of biting and being viscous, the pit bull is capable of being a good dog, pit bull owners all say, there dog is great with there kids and family and even strangers, other dogs are touchy but can be contained with proper training. Also it putting good breeders out of a job is unfair because they can be breeding great dogs not even the killer ones. It violates their rights and they have been fighting for them back since 2005. The Law is cruel and unusual and should be lifted.

Work Cited

1.Arland Kent, pit bulls fighting there historical bad rep, April 2010,

2. Mrgrimwig, Why do pit bulls attack?, august 12, 2011,

3. Unknown, 10 common misconceptions about pit bulls. Febuary 10th, 2009,

4. CBC news team, Pit bull ban begins, August 29th 2005,

5. Aaron Hall, Pitbull ban close to being lifted, February 24th 2012,

Pit Bull Law In Ontario Essay

Law and Morality Essay

Law and Morality Essay.

Morality can be described as a set of values common to society, which are normative, specifying the correct course of action in a situation and the limits of what society considers acceptable. Law on the other hand according to Osborn’s Concise Law Dictionary is a rule of conduct imposed and reinforced by the sovereign. A body of principles regognized and applied by the state in the administration of justice. If law is to enforce morals, then it is faced with the problem that what one person considers immoral, another might not, so which viewpoint should the law uphold.

This can be seen in the case of Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority (1986) where Mrs Gillick sought a declaration that what she saw as an immoral activity (making contraceptive advice and treatment available to girls under the age of consent) was by nature of its immorality, illegal. This was a moral conflict as some saw this as immoral – it encouraged underage sex – others felt it was moral as young girls would engage in underage sex anyway , but contraceptives would prevent unwanted pregnancies.

Which viewpoint would the law support.

The House of Lords ruled against Mrs Gillick but stated that they were governed by the relevant statutes rather than moral arguments. What then is the relationship between law and morality. What are the differences and similarities The vast differences between existing theories of the basis of law often fail to notice the fact that they are based on the practice of comparing an act to certain standards in order to determine its legality. [1] Different approaches differ in terms of which standards are compared and assessed, though both ultimately assess acts to certain standards to determine their legality or morality.

The two leading theories on the topic are positivism and naturalism – the debate between the two has fuelled theorists for centuries. Many observers of positivism presume that it completely dismisses any role of morality in the application of the law, while naturalism bases the existence and validity of law on moral bases. Although the theories are fundamentally different, it is argued that a link between law and morality is glaringly obvious and unavoidable, no matter which side one chooses to follow or favour.

This paper will seek to argue that claims which deny any link between law and morality are weak and flawed at best, and apply in a limited manner to simple, straightforward cases. The mere existence of the ‘hard case’ and of court deliberation provides a great deal of evidence for not only the existence of the link between law and morality, but also the necessity of such a link. The naturalist and positivist theories will be explored in order to assess whether the link between law and morality can survive its critics and strengthen the faith of its followers.

Legal Positivism Positivists claim that objective morality simply cannot exist because values consist of different attitudes towards and beliefs about certain values. [2] Attitudes and beliefs differ between individuals and cause us to react to a certain act in a subjective manner. Moral perceptions are predominantly emotional, so that such assessments in the realm of the law cause uncertainty and inconsistency. It also fails to recognise difficult cases and the possibility of new cases arising.

The apparent main flaw of positivism is that it is unable to explain the legal deliberation which takes place in the courtroom, particularly the difficult cases which have no apparent ‘yes or no’ answer. The very difficulties posed by interpreting the law and applying it to everyday circumstances are unable to be adequately explained by positivism. Indeed, there is a distinction here between hard and soft positivists; the latter do recognise a form of moral basis upon which written laws are perched.

Yet both soft and hard positivists are at pains to explain how hard cases arise, in which there is simply no right or wrong answer, and in which morality may unavoidably take a central role. Morality and the Naturalist Approach Naturalists claim that non-legal considerations such as ideological, moral and political factors are not only relevant to the posited law, but that law is also based on such factors. The central argument of naturalism is that objective knowledge of right and wrong can and does exist, and that this provides the basis for legal decisions as well as for the validity of law.

Naturalists such as Aquinas[3] claim that natural law provides the basis of validity for posited laws. Rousseau[4] believes that positive law cannot override or entrench upon certain existing natural rights; Aristotle claims that natural justice exists independently of individual perceptions of or opinions on it. [5] Jeremy Bentham proposed utilitarianism where moral action was the one that produced good for many, even it was at the expense of one – the greatest good for the greatest number.

John Stuart Mill’s refinement of the idea argues that while this is true the individual should not have to follow society’s morals and should be free to act as they wish provided they do not harm others. The problem arises in defining who are included in others and what is harm. It is clear that naturalist claims to provide a strong link between law and morality, the latter of the two being a basis upon which the former is based. Judges, when they interpret and apply posited law, often make non-legal considerations in order to apply the law effectively.

Naturalism, however, has a major flaw in that it claims the existence of objective morality. There are many case examples which suggest otherwise. [6] One presented with two rather extreme and different concepts of the link (or not) between law and morality. Is it plausible that such a links exists? Is there evidence for such a link, and how does it serve to affect how the law is administered? Does there really need to be objective knowledge of right and wrong in order for the link to be maintained? In order to explore these questions, the ever-elusive ‘difficult case’ will be assessed.

It will be argued that the link between law and morality is not weakened by the argument that objective knowledge of right and wrong is nonexistent. The debate over the relationship between law and morality came to the forefront in the Hart/Devlin debate which followed the publication of Wolfenden Report in 1957. The report recommended the legalization of prostitution and homosexuality on the particularly untilitarian basis that “the law should not intervene in the private lives of citizens or seek to enforce an particular pattern of behaiour further than necessary” to protect others.

Hart supported the report’s approach stating that legal enforcement of moral code is unnecessary. Devlin on the other hand was strongly opposed to the report. He felt that society had a certain moral standard which law was obliged to uphold as society would fall apart without a common morality. Devlin felt that this morality should be based on the views of the ‘right-minded person’ and that legislature should adhere to three basic principles: (1) Individuals should be allowed as much freedom and privacy as is possible without compromising morality.

(2) Parliament and the judiciary should be cautious about changing laws relating to morality and (3) punishment should be used to prevent actions considered abominable to ‘right-minded people’. Hart opposed this view questioning what was ‘right-minded’ and submitted four reasons for not criminalizing what the ‘right-minded person” objected to. (1)Punishment of someone does harm to them only and if their actions involved no one else this was not right.

(2) Free will is very moral, so interferance with free will would be immoral, (3) Free will allows learning through experimentation and (4) legislation surpressing an individual’s sexuality will harm them, as it can affect their emotional state. For the majority of legal issues, judges are not required to deviate from posited law and precedent in order to decide. The law makes murder wrong, and it has been a long-standing principle that taking the life of another is morally abhorrent. Yet what of the ‘hard cases’? What if A kills B in self-defence?

What if C forced A to kill B else A lose his own life? What if the application of a law is indeterminate? Can posited law be applied without recourse to moral reasoning? Positivists such as Dworkin and Hart differ in their approach. Dworkin claims that there will always be applicable law,[7] while Hart claims that judges can make non-legal considerations under such circumstances. [8] Hart’s theory is applicable to the less open-textured terms where changes made by non-legal considerations are the result of “resemblances which can reasonably be defended as both

legally relevant and sufficiently close. ”[9] The judge thus utilises morality as a way of choosing between pre-existent definitions, without devising his own definitions. Although Hart is classed as a positivist, he does acknowledge a “core of indisputable truth in the doctrines of natural law”[10] which enables law to be based on something more than simply factual considerations. Hart’s theory can be interpreted as recognising a form of natural law, although he does stipulate that having recourse to moral values does not always ensure that law and its application will be just.

This assessment of Hart’s approach is plausible, and it serves to create a link between law and morality which avoids the objective criticism of the naturalists. It provides a strong argument for a link between law and morality which is based on interpretational, social considerations which are evident in the courtroom today. It is perhaps necessary to query: does the law define what is right and wrong, or do we determine good and bad independently of the law? There are certainly evident customs in society which have strong influences on the way we behave.

Such customs are not implemented by the law or backed by a sanction; they are simply examples of moral codes within a society which exist independently to the law. Does this mean that law and morality have no connection so that the latter can only be found in customs? Does a moral rule backed by the law become a valid law no matter what its content? It is arguable that even majority abhorrence of an act does not make it an immoral act per se, despite the fact that societies need a shared moral outlook in order to exist.

[11] It could thus be suggested that the law is simply an embodiment of the current moral outlook of society; like morality the law changes according to attitudes and social tolerance. It is such observations that cause the positivist shunning of the link between law and morality to become less convincing. It is even arguable that the obeying of law is based on the recognition of the moral rule that law should be obeyed; the threat of sanction is evidently not enough to deter some. It could further be argued that the only reason that legislation has authority as law is because of the moral structure of a society.

As has already been mentioned, the law develops and evolves according to moral outlooks; this can be seen where laws prohibiting same sex marriages and abortion have been abolished. If the law were completely disconnected from morality, why has it developed and evolved over time? Why does social pressure to repeal or change law often achieve its goal? The Link Between Law and Morality – Evidence Dworkin claims that courts refer to non-legal (moral) standards when deciding hard cases. Assessing and taking into account moral and political considerations has the potential to create a complex web of law and “justify the network as a whole”.

[12] It is strongly arguable that deciding difficult cases without appealing to non-legal considerations is futile – the reason that such cases are ‘hard’ is because the law does not provide enough direction. However, it is important here to stress that decisions are not free to be made according to personal convictions – judges are on the contrary required to carefully weigh social factors in applying and interpreting the law. Dworkin’s theory in this sense is able to escape the positivist criticism that non-legal convictions are ultimately subjective.

Rather, the judge is assigned the difficult interpretative task which is seen constantly in court. This is evident in cases such as that of Re A (Conjoined Twins)[13] in which moral judgements were inevitable and necessary in applying the law to the specific circumstances of the case. Ultimately, the judges were faced with the decision of killing one twin in order to save the other, or to not act and cause the death of both twins. While moral judgements are dangerous ground here, a positivist could not argue that the law as it is could be applied simply and without problem – often the law is simply not enough.

The law in this case proved of very little aid – how is one to decide whether A’s life has more importance or value than B’s life? While moral considerations could have caused the decision to fall either way, it must be stressed that such situations must risk the dangerous ground created by moral convictions, particularly because the law provides little guidance. Simple cases indeed provide evidence that a link between law and morality is not only non-existent, but also not necessary. [14] Yet the ever-emerging hard cases cry otherwise; they not only highlight the constant

shortcomings of posited law, they also emphasise the need to acknowledge and utilise the link between law and morality. Although theorists claim that natural law need not override positive law, except when the two conflict, this serves to strengthen the link between law and morality. If there is no link between law and morality, then how can conflict occur in the first place? Why does public outrage occur when an ‘unjust’ law breaks the boundaries of social tolerance? Those who claim that there is no link between law and morality utilise the naturalist claim to objective morality as their basis for criticism.

Yet the term ‘universal morality’ need not apply to the universe as a whole. It is plausible, and certainly does not discredit the naturalist theory, that ‘universality’ or ‘objectivity’ remains as such despite being applied or interpreted differently between societies. Because the universal moral to preserve life may allow the sick to be killed in primitive societies to save sparse resources for the healthy, while requiring that all efforts be made to save every life possible in richer, more able societies.

The moral principle – the preservation of life – still remains existent, it is simply expressed and applied differently between societies. [15] Conclusion There are various theories which discuss how law and morality should relate to each other. The current approach by the legal system seem to be that a common morality , based on traditional values should be maintained by the law as exposed by Devlin. Cases such as Shaw v Director of Public Prosecutions (1961) and Knuller v Director of Public Prosecutions ( 1972) made use of the conspiracy to corrupt moral.

This had not been done since the 19th century. This was the beginning of the law to attempt to uphold society’s moral values according to Devlin’s doctrine. This approach continued as the more recent case of R v Brown (Anthony) 1992 demonstrates. The defendants had had willingly consented to various sado-masochistic practices and none of them reported it to the police. Yet they were prosecuted and their convictions were upheld by both the House of Lords and The European Court of Human rights, based on public policy to defend the morality of society.

Whether or not the law should uphold the moral values of society is still debated. Those who criticise the link between law and morality often rely on the argument that no single opinion of correctness can exist,[16] yet such criticisms presuppose that such a link requires a single notion of correctness or justice. [17] It does not require such a single notion; it merely requires the recognition that legal considerations are often not enough, and that the interpretational practice which takes place is indeed a result of the link between law and morality.

To ultimately deny a link between law and morality is to entirely discredit legal precedents, lengthy assessments of judge decisions, and the controversy of many difficult cases. It is also to turn away from the glaringly evident evolutions and changes which have occurred in the legal sphere – to ignore the changing of legal standards according to societal outlooks. Such evidence is difficult to ignore. Upon which other basis does the law stand if it does not reflect the moral tolerances and standards of the society which is subject to it?

Bibliography R Alexy, ‘On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin’s Critique’ (2000) 2 RJ 13, 138-147. T Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologiae’, in Selected Political Writings, JG Dawson (trans), AP D’Entreves (ed) (BB, Oxford 1970). J Bentham, Of Laws in General, HLA Hart (ed) (AP, London 1970a). J Bentham, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, JH Burns, HLA Hart (eds) (AP, London 1970b). E Bulygin, ‘Alexy’s Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality’ (2002) 2 RJ 13, 133-137.

P Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (OUP, New York 1996). R Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1986). J Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (OUP, New York 1980). HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (CP, Oxford 1961). HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, OCP, Oxford 1994). DD Raphael, Moral Philosophy (OUP, Oxford 1994). R Wacks, Understanding Jurisprudence (OUP, Oxford 2005). ———————– [1] R Wacks, Understanding Jurisprud). ence (OUP, Oxford 2005 [2] DD Raphael, Moral Philosophy (OUP, Oxford 1994) ch. 2.

[3] T Aquinas, ‘Summa Theologiae’, in Selected Political Writings, JG Dawson (trans), AP D’Entreves (ed) (BB, Oxford 1970) pt. 2, qu. 94, art. 2. [4] JJ Rousseau, The Social Contract (OUP, Oxford 1762). [5] Aristotle, Nichomachean Ethics, H Rackham (trans) (William Heineman, London 1938). [6] Corbett v Corbett (1970) 2 WLR 1306 CA per Ormrod LJ. [7] R Dworkin, Law’s Empire (Belknap Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1986) 32-34. [8] HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (2nd edn, OCP, Oxford 1994) 145-147. [9] HLA Hart, The Concept of Law (CP, Oxford 1961) 127.

[10] HLA Hart, 1994, op. cit. , 146. [11] P Devlin, The Enforcement of Morals (OUP, New York 1996). [12] R Dworkin, 1986, op. cit. , 245. [13] (2000) 4 All ER 961, (2001) 1 FLR 1 CA. [14] J Finnis, Natural Law and Natural Rights (OUP, New York 1980) 33-34. [15] J Finnis, 1980, op. cit. , 34. [16] E Bulygin, ‘Alexy’s Thesis of the Necessary Connection between Law and Morality’ (2002) 2 RJ 13, 133-137. [17] R Alexy, ‘On the Thesis of a Necessary Connection between Law and Morality: Bulygin’s Critique’ (2000) 2 RJ 13, 138-147.

Law and Morality Essay

Case Study: Company Law Essay

Case Study: Company Law Essay.

Question 1 The shares of ABC Limited, a private company are held by Ann and Andy Anderson and Bev and Bob Brown. The Andersons who together hold 90% of the company shares are concerned that the company is in need of further capital but because of family difference, the Andersons are not willing to inject additional funds so long as the Browns are shareholders in the company. They have therefore decided to pass a resolution which will enable the majority acquire compulsorily at full value shares of the minority.

Advise Bev and Bob Brown.

Bev and Bob Brown my advise to you is that the Anderson being the majority shareholder of ABC Ltd. can remove you Bev and Bob Brown by ordinary resolution of the company in general meeting, and if you Bev and Bob was appointed by the articles you can be removed by a special resolution passed to alter the articles. The Anderson’s decisions being majority shareholder is binding on you the minority shareholder whether you like it or not it is they who control the company ultimately.

However Bev and Bob you can take representative action against the Anderson’s for fraud committed against you Bev and Bob as in the case Eastmanco. Ltd. V Greater London where they stultify the purpose for which the company was formed and deprive you the minority shareholder of your existing prospects of obtaining votes. Being a member of ABC Ltd. you can bring representative action against the Company to protect your personal rights which you Bob and Bev enjoys. There have been a breach of duty owed to you Bob and Bev the minority shareholder cannot be ratified by a majority of shareholders.

Question 2 Discuss the rule in Foss V Harbottle The rule in Foss V Harbottle illustrates the principle of majority control and minority protection. If a wrong is done to the company then the only proper plaintiff to bring an action to redress the wrong is the company itself and not a shareholder or anyone else. Where the minority’s complaint is that some act has been done wrongly, which would nevertheless be lawful if there were an ordinary resolution in general meeting to authorize it, then the court will not interfere at the instance of the minority. The rule places the majority member in a very strong position over the minority as in the case Bamford V Bamford.

The rule prevents the company from spending money on litigation to no ultimate purpose if an independent majority does not wish to pursue a claim. The rule may be used by majority shareholders to perpetrate fraud on the minority members especially if the majorities are also directors of the company. The rule is an inevitable consequence of a corporation is a separate legal entity. Therefore, if harm is caused to a company then only the company itself can take legal action. No one else, irrespective of their losses, will have the necessary power to take legal proceedings.

Question 3 Dave is minority shareholder in ABC Company Ltd. Andy, Bev and Carol are also major controlling shareholders and in addition, they hold the position of chairman, managing director respectively. Dave is aggrieved that: i. The company has just sold 5 acres of land to Bev’s cousin at half the price the company paid for it ii. The company has recently engaged Andy’s uncle as its marketing director at an annual salary of $5 million. His service contract includes a provision that in the event of his death, his widow shall continue to receive his annual salary by way of pension payment for the rest of her life.

Andy’s uncle was in very poor health at the time of his appointment. Andy, Bev and Carol do not admit that anything improper has taken place. Advise Dave on the legality of Andy, Bev and Carol’s action and whether he can bring an action against them. Dave base on the actions of Andy, Bev and Carol you can bring an action against them as in the case Daniels V Daniels. The major shareholders Andy, Bev and Carol owed fiduciary duty to the company and most act in good faith and in the best interest of the company and not in their own interest.

The directors have been exercised in a manner that is unfairly prejudicial to the company and also breach of their fiduciary duties as in the case Kelmer V Baxter. Andy, Bev and Carol action are base on personal interest. The court can make an order to rectify the matters as in section 213A of the 2004 Company Act. The court can order for the company to regulate the company affairs by amending its articles against Andy’s uncle who was appointed as marketing director at an annual alary of $5 million and he was in very poor health at the time of his appointment. The court can regulate the company affairs by amending ABC Ltd. articles so that Andy’s uncle widow does not receive his annual salary by way of pension payment for the rest of her life after he dies. The court can also order for compensation to the company for the 5 acres of land that Bev’s cousin buy at half price the company paid for it. Dave you can bring action against them in the court.

Question 4 The articles of association of ABC Ltd. public company provides inter alia ‘At a general meeting of the company, subject to any right or resolutions for the time being attached to any class or classes of shares, on a show of hand, every member in person shall have one vote’ Marvin, a shareholder who was present at a meeting of the company voted but the directors refused to register his vote in connection with passing of a special resolution. Advise Marvin who wants to compel the directors to register his vote. Marvin base on information given above you take Representative action against the company to protect your personal rights as in the case Pender V Lushington.

Being a member allows you to bring representative action against the company. The directors of ABC Ltd. owe fiduciary duty to you personally. Suing under representative action to prevent the company from acting contrary to its articles which states that: ‘At a general meeting of the company, subject to any right or resolutions for the time being attached to any class or classes of shares, on a show of hand, every member in person shall have one vote’. You were present at the meeting and voted but they the directors refused to register your vote so you can bring them to court.

Case Study: Company Law Essay

Alternative Obligation Essay

Alternative Obligation Essay.

GENERAL RULE: The right to choose belongs to the debtor/ obligor Except: When the right has been expressly granted to the creditor Right of choice of debtor not absolute. LIMITATION ON THE DEBTOR’S CHOICE (1) The debtor cannot choose those prestations which are (a) impossible , (b) unlawful ,or (c) which could not have been the object of the obligation. (2) Only one prestation is practicable (3) The debtor cannot choose part of one prestation and part of another prestation. (Art 1199) Communication of notice that choice has been made * The debtor must choose and communicate his choice to the creditor.

* The alternative obligation will be converted into a simple obligation * The proof and form of notice may be made by orally or in writing, expressly or implied. Effect when only one is practicable * The debtor loses his right of choice when only one alternative prestation is practicable of performance. When debtor may rescind contract * If the debtor could not make a choice due to the creditor’s act of making prestations impossible, debtor may RESCIND the contract with damages.

Rescission creates the obligation to return the things which were the object of the contact together with their fruits, and the price with its interest.

* If the debtor is being prevented to choose only a particular prestation, and there are other available, he is free to choose from them, after notifying the creditor of his decision The effects of loss or impossibility of the alternative prestation BEFORE the right of choice is exercised. * Once the debtor has communicated his choice of alternative prestation to be performed to the creditor, the obligation becomes simple * If the chosen alternative is lost without the fault of the debtor, the obligation will be extinguished.

* If the chosen alternative is lost due to the fault of the debtor, the obligation will be converted into monetary consideration in the form of damages. * Effect if one or some of the alternative prestations in the alternative obligation are lost BEFORE the debtor has communicated his choice to creditor * The consequence will really depend upon whether the right of choice was given to the debtor or to the creditor. A. When the right of choice belongs to the DEBTOR * If the loss is due to FORTUITOUS EVENT a) If all alternative prestation are lost, the alternative obligation extinguished.

(Article 1174) b) If two or more alternative prestations remain, the debtor can still exercise his right of choice and choose from any remaining alternative prestation(Article 1200) c) If only one of alternatives remain, there is no more alternative obligation but only a simple obligation. * If loss is due to DEBTOR’s FAULT a) If all the alternative prestation are lost, the alternative obligation is converted into monetary consideration as indemnity for damages. The basis for the computation of the amount to be paid by the debtor will be the value of the last thing or service lost plus damages.

b) If two or more of alternative prestation remain, the debtor can still exercise his right of choice and choose from any of the remaining alternatives (ART 1200) c) If only one alternatives remain, there is no more alternative obligation but only simple obligation. B. When the right of choice belongs to the CREDITOR * If the loss is due to a FORTUITOUS EVENT The effect s are the same as where the right of choice belongs to debtor * If the loss is due to DEBTOR’S FAULT a. If all the alternative prestations are lost, the alternative obligation is converted into monetary consideration as indemnity for damages.

The basis for the computation of the amount to be paid by the debtor will be the value of any of object chosen by the creditor (because he is given the right of choice) plus damages. b. If two or more prestations remain, the obligation is still alternative . The creditor has the option to either: b. 1 choose from among the remaining alternatives b. 2 chose the lost object. The debtor will be then liable for the value of lost object chosen by the creditor plus the damages. FACULTATIVE OBLIGATION.

* is one where only one prestation has been agreed upon but the obligor may render another in substitution * The right of choice belongs only to the DEBTOR * Once the substitution is made, the obligation is converted into a simple one to deliver or perform the substituted prestation. * The substitution also becomes effective only from the time the debtor communicates to creditor his choice to perform the substituted prestation. Alternative and Faculative Obligations Distinguised The differences are as follows : 1) Number of prestations Alternative- several prestation are due but compliance with one is sufficient.

Faculative- only one prestation is due although the debtor is allowed to substitute 2) Right of choice Alternative- the right of choice may given to creditor or third person Faculative- the right to make substitution is given only to the debtor 3) Loss through a fortuitous event Alternative- the loss of one or more through a fortuitous event does not extinguish the obligation Faculative- the loss of the thing due extinguishes the obligation 4) Loss through fault of debtor a) Alternative- the loss of one through the fault of debtor does not render him liable.

Faculative- the loss of the thing due through his fault makes him liable b) Alternative- where the choice belongs to the creditor, the loss of one alternative through the fault of the debtor gives rise to liability. Faculative- the loss of the substitute before substitution through the fault of the debtor does not render him liable. Effect on loss of the thing in Facultative Obligation BEFORE SUBSTITUTION * The debtor is not liable if the substitute prestation is lost whether due to his fault or to a fortuitous event. * If the original prestation is lost by virtue of a fortuitous event, the obligation is extinguished.

AFTER SUBSTITUTION * The debtor is not liable if the original prestation is lost whether due to his fault or to a fortuitous event. * If the substitute is lost, the liability of the debtor depends upon whether or not the loss is due to his fault. FACULTATIVE OBLIGATION * is one where only one prestation has been agreed upon but the obligor may render another in substitution * The right of choice belongs only to the DEBTOR * Once the substitution is made, the obligation is converted into a simple one to deliver or perform the substituted prestation.

* The substitution also becomes effective only from the time the debtor communicates to creditor his choice to perform the substituted prestation. Alternative and Faculative Obligations Distinguised The differences are as follows : 5) Number of prestations Alternative- several prestation are due but compliance with one is sufficient. Faculative- only one prestation is due although the debtor is allowed to substitute 6) Right of choice Alternative- the right of choice may given to creditor or third person Faculative- the right to make substitution is given only to the debtor 7) Loss through a fortuitous event.

Alternative- the loss of one or more through a fortuitous event does not extinguish the obligation Faculative- the loss of the thing due extinguishes the obligation 8) Loss through fault of debtor c) Alternative- the loss of one through the fault of debtor does not render him liable Faculative- the loss of the thing due through his fault makes him liable d) Alternative- where the choice belongs to the creditor, the loss of one alternative through the fault of the debtor gives rise to liability. Faculative- the loss of the substitute before substitution through the fault of the debtor does not render him liable.

Effect on loss of the thing in Facultative Obligation BEFORE SUBSTITUTION * The debtor is not liable if the substitute prestation is lost whether due to his fault or to a fortuitous event. * If the original prestation is lost by virtue of a fortuitous event, the obligation is extinguished. AFTER SUBSTITUTION * The debtor is not liable if the original prestation is lost whether due to his fault or to a fortuitous event. * If the substitute is lost, the liability of the debtor depends upon whether or not the loss is due to his fault.

Alternative Obligation Essay

Antidote for the Iron Law of Oligarchy Essay

Antidote for the Iron Law of Oligarchy Essay.

In every diseases there will always a doctors to help us to cure it. In every illness it has always a medicine to manage the pain. But if we connect it to our society today, maybe it doesn’t have medicine or doctors that cure this kind of illnesses. This kind of attitude maybe we cannot erase to our society. This attitude maybe we can connect to the iron law of oligarchy. What is the iron law of oligarchy? “The iron law of oligarchy is a political theory, first developed by the German syndicalist sociologist Robert Michels.

It states that all forms of organization, regardless of how democratic or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop into oligarchies.

The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves and to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, and the general immobility and passivity of the masses.

” – From Wikipedia In connection to the definition of iron law of oligarchy, our government is considered as the democratic government. Where in it have presidents that are given a rule in every department and bureaus. Where in this rule are all obey by all the department and bureaus. Another characteristic of our government as a democratic country is that it let people to choose their own leaders.

But these actions are not enough to tell that we have our own freedom, but these actions give other people reasons to abuse their powers. Instead of serving us, they use their positions to do the things that they want. What are the reasons why they do those things? What are the things that we need to do so that their actions are change? Here the things that we need to do. If the iron law of oligarchy is the rule of few people or the elite people, we can reverse it so that we can make it the rule of many people.

Where in all the rules are all consult to us before they implement it. Another thing is, when it giving us the right information. Sometimes our government is not giving the exact information that we need to know about what happen to our government. And lastly, no oligarchy without material and power perks and bureaucracy. Part of the changes is a constant flow of reliable information among the people. Bureaucracy’s weakness is related to its inability to keep secrets and control the information flows. It is weakened as it loses the power to the flow of the information among us.

Antidote for the Iron Law of Oligarchy Essay

Political Dynasty Essay

Political Dynasty Essay.

The Philippine Constitution is a Social Contract which embodies the fundamental principles and policies, according to which the Filipino people are governed by the State. The fundamental principles are abstract and as such they cover every aspect of the life of the Filipino people; while the fundamental policies cover specific areas of application of those principles. The fundamental principles remain fixed and permanent, but the policies built upon those principles can be modified or repealed by legislation to suit the needs of the times.

The title is product of my out of the box philosophizing about the provisions of Section 1 and Section 26 taken together of Article II of our Constitution. I must say that philosophizing does not tell us my conclusions and/or thoughts are right or wrong, true or false, but it has certainly given me the basis upon which to present my meta-understanding of Section 1 and Section 26: Article II, Section 1 says: “The Philippines is a democratic and republican state.

Sovereignty resides in the people and all government authority emanates from them.

” This is the most basic principle of the Constitution, and it refers to a natural law as formulated and accepted in the mind; it refers also to essential truth upon which other truths are based. Article II, Section 26: “The State shall guarantee equal access to opportunities for public service, and prohibit political dynasties as may be defined by law. ” This is a policy built upon the principle of Section 1, and it refers to a planned line of conduct in the light of which individual decisions on political dynasties are made and coordination is achieved.

Moreover, political dynasties refer to the line of politicians of the same families. Every coin has two inseparable opposite sides – the head and the tail – yet they complement each other as they are opposed to each other to constitute only one coin. Similarly, the political issue on dynasty has two opposite yet complementary sides (a) “the principle of political dynasty” of Section 1 and (b) the “the policy of political dynasty” of Section 26. Both Sections constitute one Article II. The policy of Section 26 names the specific area of application of the principle of Section 1 of the same Article II.

The policy of Section 26 is built upon the basic principle of Section 1. Moreover, the fundamental principle of Section 1 remain fixed and permanent, but policies of Section 3 can be are modified or repealed by legislation to suit the needs and demands of the times. The People: The Creators and Masters of Political Dynasties The phrase – “sovereignty resides in the people, and all government authority emanates from them” – clearly shows that the people are the habitat of the sovereignty.

However, “people” have two distinct yet mutually complementary meanings, namely, “people as electorate” which is the source of political power of elected politicians and “people as corporate nation” which is the reason for being of elected politicians. These “dual meanings of people” effectively signify that the elected politicians are “public servants” of the people; hence the people are their “boss and master” in our democratic and republican state, not the way around By virtue of their sovereign power, the people are superior to any and all existing political dynasties, whose reason for being is service to their masters, the people.

On moral grounds, the people must be awakened to the reality that they are the boss of political dynasties, and therefore they have no reason to fear the, before, during, and after political elections. Centrality of Morality in the Constitution The centrality of morality to our Constitution is evident in the Preamble, in the imploration to Almighty God for aid to build a just and humane society and to establish a Government that shall embody the Filipino ideals and aspirations and promote their common good under a regime of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace.

The rest of the Constitution revolves around these moral ideals and moral values. These are the moral foundations of the Social Ethics Society. There are socio-economic phenomena in many areas of the country where the life-style and the exercise of political power by political dynasties is betrayal of public trust, because it is not in accord with the following moral imperatives and criteria of right and wrong in public service: “Public office is a public trust.

Public officers and employees must at all times accountable to the people, serve them with utmost responsibility, integrity, loyalty, and efficiency; act with patriotism and justice, and lead modest life”. (Article X on Accountability) Every elected politician in the public service is bound to abide by those mandates. Congress had passed anti-graft and anti-corruption laws, e. g. RA No. 6713, also known as Code of Ethics for Government Officials and Employees, in the public service. However, it appears that many of our elected politicians pay only “lip service” to anti-Graft and Anti-Corruptions laws.

For instance, there are widespread phenomena of bribery and corruption in the public service, reportedly perpetuated by corrupt politician, many of whom are allegedly members of political dynasties. Centrality of Morality to Legality The Preamble provides the moral grounds and the foundation of ethical politics of several Articles of the Constitution. No statutory law is enforceable if it is unconstitutional; and the Constitution cannot be enforced if it is immoral. The bottom line – any enabling law on political dynasty is legally binding upon the Filipinos, only if it is constitutional and moral.

A law that is moral is always constitutional, but a law that is constitutional is not necessarily moral. A Moral and Ethical Proposal I believe the policy of Section 26 which “prohibits political dynasties as may be defined by law” has two distinct opposite sides, (1) “the letter of the Constitution” which is the legalistic side, and (2) the “spirit of the Constitution” which is the ethical side. The pro-political dynasty advocates and promoters behave in accord with legal politics.

Their action is legal so long as there is no law defining and enabling the constitutional prohibition against political dynasties. Therefore, the anti-dynasty advocates and promoters should stand on moral and ethical grounds against political dynasties. It is my proposal on moral and ethical grounds that the anti-dynasty advocates should develop and promote the concept of “political dynasty of the people” based on the principle of Section 1 face-to-face the “political dynasties of oligarchs” based on the policy of Section 26 but built upon the principle of Section 1.

When there is a conflict between a principle and its policy, the principle should prevail over its policy. Moral, Ethical, and Legal Practices in Politics Moral and ethical are similar in meaning in that they both have to do with the difference between right and wrong. They are dissimilar in meaning in that ethical tends to refer to a code, system, theory, or standard of judging rightness or wrongness of moral behavior; whereas moral tends to refer to more concrete choices and issues that arouse strong feelings.

In other words, moral refers to good and evil, while ethical refers to right and wrong. Because of the untruthful disclosure of his SALN per Code of Ethics, former SC Chief Justice Renato Corona was found ethically wanting for which he was impeached, despite his superior legalistic knowledge of law; Hence, we could say that “what is moral is always ethical, but what is ethical is not necessarily moral. ” Hence, when an elected politician acts according to RA 6714, his behavior is ethical as well as legal – “what is ethical is always legal, but what is legal is not necessarily ethical”.

The Pursuit of Ethical Politics Our major problem in the pursuit of ethical politics is the lack of political will on the part of the people as electorate. Let us awaken and educate their political consciousness, and empower their political will by making them conscious of their being the political dynasty that is superior over all existing political dynasties of oligarchs” per mandate of Article II, Section 1 that the people are the habitat of sovereign power, but the exercise of such pwer is delegated and vested upon elected politicians.

Assume that Congress would never pass the law enabling the policy against political dynasties; let us then resort to the principle of Section 1 in Article II. This principle does not require any enabling law because it is precisely the ultimate basis of all enabling laws. This is the principle why the political candidates try to win the votes of the people during political campaigns. We have indeed laws prescribing the requirements of the policy to vote. The Social Ethics Society can start the movement to marginalize the political dynasties,, if not altogether eliminate them eventually from the political landscape of the Philippine.

You may also be interested in the following: political dynasty position paper

Political Dynasty Essay

Gas Laws Lab Essay

Gas Laws Lab Essay.


The four basic physical properties of a gas sample are pressure, volume, temperature, and number of moles. The volume simply indicates the volume of the container since a gas will take up all space available to it. The temperature indicates the average kinetic energy of the gas particles. For gases, the temperature must be converted to the Kelvin unit. The pressure of the gas indicates the number of collisions with each other and the wall of the container. The number of moles indicates the amount of gas particles.

Gases do not have a definite shape of volume. Gases spread out into their container and occupy the entire volume available, which means they are free to move around and have large amounts of empty space. In many chemical reactions, gases are produced; for example, reactions involving metal carbonates that react with an acid produce gaseous carbon dioxide. Objective:

To determine the volume of gas produced from a reaction between a metal carbonate and acid and to determine the identity of an unknown carbonate salt.

Pre-Lab Questions:
1. If you increase the temperature what happens to the speed of the particles? Explain. 2. What is the formula to convert Celsius temperature to Kelvin? a. °C+273.15=K
3. What are the standard conditions for a gas? Are you at standard conditions in the lab? 4. Boyle’s Law – The principle that the volume of a given mass of an ideal gas is inversely proportional to its pressure, as long as temperature remains constant. Boyle’s law is a subcase of the ideal gas law. P1V1 = P2V2 Charles’ Law – The law of volumes. The volume of a fixed amount of gas at constant pressure is directly proportional to the Kelvin temperature of the gas. (Temperature must be in Kelvin). V1T1= V2T2 V/T = K V1T2 = V2T1 Gay-Lussac’s Law – Pressure is directly proportional to temperature if the volume is constant. P1/T1 = P2/T2 5. What is the Ideal Gas Law in formula form? What is the value for the proportionality constant with units? Why are those units so important?
b. PV = nRT
c. C = PV / T
6. Write the balanced equations for CaCO3, BaCO3, Li2CO3, and Na2CO3 reactions with hydrochloric acid. 7. Calculate the molar mass of these same four metallic carbonates. LiCo3 = mass/mole; 3.0036g/0.0344 mol = 87.31 g/mol

* 3.0 M HCl (aq)
* 5 ml graduated cylinder
* Balloon String
* Scissors
* Weighing paper
* 3g of unknown #2 carbonate salt
* Funnel

First measure out 5ml of 3.0 M HCl into the graduated cylinder and weigh 3 g of the unknown carbonate salt. Using the funnel, pour the unknown carbonate salt into the balloon and put the open end of the balloon over the graduated cylinder and secure with a string. It is important to make sure the string is very tight to prevent the gas from leaking. Empty the contents of the balloon into the graduated cylinder that contains the 3.0 M HCl. After the gas fills the balloon, use a string and measure the circumference of the balloon.| Observations:Carbonate is limiting reactant.|

Based upon our experiment, equations, and calculations that our unknown Carbonate Salt for Unknown # D was Li2CO3 – Lithium Carbonate. There could be a number of factors that could have caused us to receive an 18.1% error. How we held the balloon when tipping it over the acid could greatly affect the radius of our balloon.

Gas Laws Lab Essay