Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
List of Amendments
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 3119 Views: 347 Comments: 0
Amendment I 1791 Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. Amendment II 1791 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. Amendment III 1791 No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor...
by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

Amendment XXVI 1971 Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are 18 years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age. Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Become A Member Become a member to continue reading this essay orLoginLogin
View Comments Add Comment

Human rights are those rights that...Human rights are those rights that all persons inherently possess. These rights are protected by various legal principals such as the rule of law and ensure the dignity of all people. Various organisations such as the United Nations attempt to ensure that all nations adhere to human rights laws. However, human rights are being violated by countries all around the world, even by countries such as the United States who have the national strategy - "America must stand firmly for the non "“ negotiable demands of human dignity" . The United States have been breaching international covenants and conventions on human rights with their terrorist detention camp at Guantanamo Bay. The United States, however, "acts according to the laws it defines for itself" . It is entitled to do so as it is a sovereign state. Guantanamo Bay is an American Navel base used to permanently incapacitate approximately 660 detainees from 40 nations, including children. Because the base is located on Cuban territory the prisoners are not protected by the American constitution or judiciary "it is the obligation of the Judicial Branch to ensure the preservation of our constitutional values" . These prisoners are held at the detention center in "legal limbo, with no access to lawyers or families" . The prisoners are kept isolated for 24 hours a day, little outdoor exercise time and no interaction with other prisoners. The inmates are interrogated for hours at a time and it is commonly speculated subject to torture. The International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC is the only non "“ government organisation allowed access to the prisoners. The ICRC is worried about the psychological impact that the prison is inflicting on inmates. A photograph released by the Pentagon shows inmates kneeling before soldiers, hands and ankles cuffed with masks completely covering their faces. The photograph has become an "icon of unacceptable US exceptionalism" . Sayed Abbasin, once an inmate of the Guantanamo bay detention center described the experience "it was the act of an animal to treat a human being like that" . The United States government authorised military commissions to hand down the death penalty for detainees of Guantanamo Bay. Against the verdicts the prisoners have no right to appeal, which is a requirement of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ICCPR. The defendant has no say in any legal matters, even to who defends him in court. The commissions are also allowing a lower standard of proof as to allow for evidence obtained through coercion to be admissible. These commissions themselves violate the principles of natural justice and the separation of the judiciary, all of which contradict the rule of law. The United States government cannot create unfair commissions administered by the executive, with the power to hand down death sentences to suit their current requirements. Lord Steyn, a leading judge from the United Kingdom has stated that these commissions would be a "stain on United States Justice" . The situation at Guantanamo Bay directly violates various international treaties and covenants including the Geneva Convention and the ICCPR. On January 11 2002 Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld outlined the stance the United States would be taking in regards to the terrorists detained at Guantanamo Bay. The United States have labeled the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay "unlawful combatants" and that therefore the Geneva Convention does not protect these individuals. Jamie Fellner director of Human Rights Watch states that as America is party to the Geneva Convention they are required to treat all combatants equally and humanely. The Geneva Convention is also violated simply through the authorisation of these military commissions "“ under the convention all captured fighters regardless "if they are members of an adversary states armed forces or are part of an identifiable militia group" are to be tried under the same laws and courts as the detaining country's armed forces. Therefore these military commissions not only violate the Geneva Convention but also the rule of law in the fact that they were architected with the purpose of dealing with inmates at Guantanamo Bay, and have never applied to American soldiers. Human rights violations are allowed to occur because the international community is incapable of punishing or enforcing violations. This problem with international law is predominantly due to state sovereignty. A sovereign state is defined in Butterworths Concise Australian Legal Dictionary as "a state which possesses independent competence internationally, supreme authority over all affairs and components of its territory and has acquired the attributes of statehood under the Montevideo Convention of the Rights and Duties of States 1933" . No other nation or organisation has the authority to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. Therefore, the United States has the legal right to act according to the laws it defines for itself. The principal is ironically a fundamental principal of international law yet it allows for countries to violate human rights and international law as they please. Anther major limitation of international law is its ineffective enforcement body, the International Court of Justice ICJ. The ICJ is the international body responsible for deciding on matters of international disputes. However, countries cannot be compelled to recognise the jurisdiction of the ICJ. In the event that a country does accept the courts jurisdiction there are no systems or enforcement bodies that could ensure compliance with the ruling of the court. The United States have ignored the ruling of the ICJ in the past, in 1986 the United States rejected the order of the ICJ to terminate its "unlawful use of force against Nicaragua" . The ICJ is an extremely ineffective body, adding to the incompetence of international law. The reason international law faces so many problems is because countries can choose which laws they adhere to and weather or not they wish to be punished. The Guantanamo Bay incapacitation centre outlines the inability of international law and organisations to deal with breaches of human rights. Although the United States have violated various fundamental principal of which democracy is based upon, as well as various international treaties such as the ICCPR and the Geneva Convention nothing can be done about the human rights violations imposed at Guantanamo Bay. There will be no true effective international law if countries can continue to hide behind the excuse of state sovereignty. If the effectiveness of International Law is to increase, and security threats and challenges are to be met, the commitment of national states to international law must improve The United States must remember that we have human rights not because we are American or British but because we are human.   

Human rights are those rights that all persons inherently possess. These rights are protected by various legal principals such as the rule of law and ensure the dignity of all people. Various organisations such as the United Nations attempt to ensure that all nations adhere to human rights laws. However,...

Words: 1091 View(s): 237 Comment(s): 0
The constitutions of most of our...The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There are those who believe that gun's should be banned, as guns are the number one killer. All around the world, small arms stocks were destroyed in the hope to lower the amount of guns in the world. South Africa's destruction of 24 000 small arms today is part of worldwide small arms destructions "“ 6 000 illegal guns were destroyed in Cambodia, 1 700 in Mozambique, and 10 000 weapons were destroyed in Brazil. Through these destructions governments from around the world are showing their support for the regulation of the small arms trade "“ a trade that kills an estimated 500 000 people each year. Handguns and other firearms have a long tradition in American civilization. The right to bear arms is an American right featured in the second Amendment of the Constitution. In the 18th century, when the constitution was written, times were different; there was a need for armed citizens to insure the safety of the society as a whole. Contemporarily the police department preserves the safety of society and the need for armed citizens is out of date. The founding fathers of the Constitution could presumably never imagine the horrendous outcome of their actions. Every year too many lives are claimed as the result of the American government's inability to fully face up to effects of the issue. Compared to other western countries that have considerably stricter gun control laws America is still viewed as "The Wild-Wild West". The growing gun related death toll in the U.S. has to come to a turning point. Stripping away the constitutional right to bear arms might have the effect that only criminals will have access to guns. It is important to understand that in a society where both criminals and law abiding citizens have access to guns the likeliness of an innocent person getting shot, when both parties are waving guns, is probably greater than if only criminals have guns. A ban on firearms might not be appealing as a short-term solution but it is important that people don't limit their thinking to their generation and not think about the safety of their children, grandchildren and the society people are creating today for them to live in. The main obstacle in removing firearms from citizens in the U.S. is the second Amendment of the Constitution. 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." The second Amendment can be interpreted as every citizen right to bear arms. However the key word is "Militia", meaning soldiers or defenders of the State. In the late 18th century, when the Constitution was written, times were very different than those of contemporary America. People were scared of possible invasions from Native Americans, the English, and other nationalities. By "a well regulated Militia"¦" the founding fathers probably meant that citizens could have a muscot standing in the corner just in case anything would happen. Note that the writers of the Constitution added, "A well regulated"¦" in front of the word Militia. That would most likely reveal a controversy in writing this Amendment, some of the founding fathers might have foreseen the possibility of a misinterpretation of this Amendment. In the U.S. there are approximately 200 million privately owned guns, which is statistically close to a gun per person and places more than one gun per home on average O'Donnell 771. In other words, guns are all around. This effects, without a doubt, the whole society structure and the citizens that live within its boundaries. The children that live within a gun infested society are going to suffer the consequences. In fact, kids between the ages 16 and 19 have the highest handgun victimization rate among all age groups. It's not hard to understand why, since there are on average more than one gun per household, kids are likely to find firearm and in some cases even use it. Here are a couple of incidents that occurred not so long ago. All are witness statements taken down by the police and are all in favor of the government to take action: "A shopkeeper who was shot dead in a robbery stepped in front of her killers to save her daughter, said her husband." "Thieves killed Marion Bates, 64, in front of her daughter Xanthe in an attack at their family jewelry store in Arnold, Nottingham, on Tuesday." "A man has died and another has been injured after a drive-by shooting in Hertfordshire." "Police say two men came under fire- most possibly from an automatic weapon- outside the Physical Limit Health and Fitness Club in Brewery road in Hoddesdon Gun Control in the United States of America is a topic that has had some criticism and support by many citizens. The critical people of this topic believe that the guns do not kill people; it is the people that kill people. The supporters of this topic believe that guns lead to violence and a feeling of power over others. They also believe that if guns were eliminated from the public, then violence and death would decrease heavily in this country. These two opposing views leave the federal government open to a decision on whether or not to abolish one of our Constitutional rights, or to keep allowing people the right to own a gun. The majority of crimes committed in the United States were accompanied by a weapon, which was usually a gun. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research dedicates its service to prevent gun-related deaths and injuries. Studies have proven that in 1997 there were 32,436 gun related deaths which calculated out equals 88 deaths a day. A study by researchers from the University of Chicago, John Lott and David Mustard, showed that violent crime is reduced when citizens have a law that allows them to carry concealed weapons. In 1994 a crime bill was passed that included an assault weapons ban that outlawed the manufacturing and selling of semiautomatic weapons and prohibits the manufacturing of copies. The Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research was established in 1995 and applies an approach to informing the public about guns. The Center attempts to educate the public about firearm injuries and new gun policies. The Center tries to prove that the safety of guns can be regulated as we would regulate the safety of other consumer goods. The Center looks into legal and public strategies to reduce the amounts of injuries and deaths due to the use of guns. The Center creates and evaluates policies to restrict the availability of weapons to high risk users. The faculty of the Center evaluates the effect of gun laws such as those banning the Saturday Night Specials, or permitting the carrying of a concealed weapon. The Center also conducts surveys to find out from the public what people think about gun laws and policies There is like all arguments, a reason why guns should not be banned. There are reasons which have to be accounted for such as the quote "Guns don't kill people, people kill people.". For almost as long as guns have been around gun control has been a major issue throughout the world. As we look back on the past we find that gun control, its is said that gun control doesn't really help reduce crime. Another down side of gun control is that if the government takes away the right to own weapons then they will start to think they can take other rights away. With every new anti gun law passed the crime rate in the United States escalates. For example if you look at the state of Texas or any other state where pro gun laws were recently passed, that allow non felon citizens to purchase and carry a handgun, you can see that crime rates have gone down in these states. It appears that if criminals feel threatened, because their victims may have a gun, they are less likely to attack people. This example shows how gun laws that restrict guns are ineffective because when a law that allows guns is passed crime rates don't go up but actually go down when more people have guns. "Gun laws fail because they do not address the issue. The issue is not possession of firearms, but misuse of firearms. We cannot expect criminals to abide by gun laws when they have already shown a disregard for law and order by their criminal activity. The only people ever affected by gun laws are peaceful, law abiding citizens, who never abuse their firearms right. Recent research is finding gun laws do not reduce the amount of violent crime in our society. Gun laws have succeeded only in disarming the law abiding and making the criminals' work environment safer I submit that our concern should be to make the environment for honest citizens, and this, gun laws have failed to do." Thomas Jefferson predicted these same results when he said, "Laws that forbid the Carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." If someone is a criminal they either don't really care about breaking the law or they don't plan on getting caught. It is absurd to pass laws that restrict law abiding citizens from owning weapons because it isn't the citizens, that are obeying the laws,that should be punished for the wrong doing of the criminals. A robber is not going to stop and think wow I better not hold up this store, with this gun, just because it is illegal. Robbing a store is illegal in the first place, but the robber is still going to rob the store, so what is the point of making guns illegal. The law shouldn't be on the gun it should be against the person using the gun. The gun itself did nothing wrong. If a robber robs a store the gun is not thinking or moving by itself so it can't be blamed for the crime.   

The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; it is their right and duty to be at all times armed. Thomas Jefferson, 1824 Should guns be banned in America? Should guns be banned? This is one of the widest asked questions. There...

Words: 1779 View(s): 310 Comment(s): 0