Related Keywords

No Related Keywords

Register NowHow It Works Need Essay Need Essay
List of Amendments
0 User(s) Rated!
Words: 3119 Views: 337 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): 221 Comment(s): 0
As an electrician, when I make...As an electrician, when I make application for a job, the prospective employer wants to know the usual information; education, character through personal references, and professional ability from former employers. The disclosure of professional acumen is derived primarily from former employers and is limited to ability and punctuality. The object is to discover if I can accomplish the tasks expected of a master electrician in an acceptable timeframe. There is no extensive look at specific methods of mechanics or schools of thought concerning leadership, just a check to make certain that I can get the job finished on time and on budget, with the crew furnished. Selecting a Supreme Court justice is basically the same process. The President picks a nominee and the Senate checks his or her education, personal references, and past public performance; then votes yea or nay. This scenario bears out in both the debates of the Constitutional Convention and in the Federalist Papers. In the minutes of a debate dated July 21, 1787, between Madison, Randolf, and Mason of Virginia; Pickney of S. Carolina; Ellsworth of Connecticut; Morris of Pennsylvania; and Gerry, of Massachusetts, the discussion centered on who should nominate, then confirm justices. Madison made the point that the President should make the nomination because he represents the whole of the United States, and that the Senate should, ""¦let a [simple] majority reject" after stating "that he [Madison] was not anxious that two thirds should be necessary to disagree to a nomination" Indeed, in the Federalist Papers Madison favors the third option that the judicial nomination should be vested "in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly [the Senate]"; behind the options that "the power of appointment" should rest, "in a single man, or in a select assembly [the Senate]". The use of words like "concurrence" and "approbation" indicate that unless there is something in the character or conduct of a nominee, the Senate should "concur" with the President's pick and Madison states so in Federalist 76; "It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity". Again in Federalist 76, "it is not likely that their [the Senate] sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal". Mr. Madison seems clear that the choice of magistrates should not be reduced to the advancement of partisan issues, but that the stature of such a person should be held above the fray. The refusal of Senate Democrats to accept a nominee on the basis of a candidate's political views is contrary to the framers intent. It would seem that any choice made by this President specifically, is unworthy of such a degree of impartiality considering the Senate's past conduct when the pendulum swung the other way. That thought process, brought to consensus to in the convention and detailed in Federalist 76 was designed to prevent favoritism and cronyism in the Senate by representatives from particular parts of the country, "give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that"; and to hold the President to the nomination of qualified people. The logic lies in the fact that the President, elected then as today, by electors of the state legislatures to this day there is no federal right to vote represents the whole of the country, while members of the legislative branch had ,and have, regional loyalties. It was thought that the Senate would not be likely to reject a qualified nominee of good character because they will be immediately be confronted with another nominee of the President's choice, and the second pick may not be as palatable as the first. A case in point would be the bipartisan rejection of Harriet Miers, apparently now considered less objectionable by Senate Democrats than the President's current choice of Judge Alito. The good news is that the system is working as designed and we are witness to the operation of a 216 year old machine that is running as smoothly today as the day it rolled off the line in 1789. Those who divine the myriad of conspiracies concerning the nomination of Ms. Miers I must admit that I am standing with the crowd that is scratching its collective head on that one, the predominant one being that she was a Trojan horse to make Judge Alito more palatable to Senate Democrats, need to familiarize themselves with the intent of the founders as I am sure the President has. It is as inconceivable to me that the President would act in such a cavalier manner with respect to Ms. Miers' feelings, as it is that she would participate in such a vile conspiracy.   

As an electrician, when I make application for a job, the prospective employer wants to know the usual information; education, character through personal references, and professional ability from former employers. The disclosure of professional acumen is derived primarily from former employers and is limited to ability and punctuality. The object...

Words: 851 View(s): 133 Comment(s): 0