TOPIC #2: One of the recurring themes that we have discussed is the degree to wh
ID: 1139799 • Letter: T
Question
TOPIC #2: One of the recurring themes that we have discussed is the degree to which the Constitution and Bill of Rights should be regarded as "higher law." We have engaged in our own critical discussions exploding certain myths about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. We have also observed Thomas Jefferson's view- adopted by South Carolina during the Nullification Crisis of 1832 (but contested by Andrew Jackson) - that the Constitution was merely a cancelable compact among the states and the national government. In addition, the fact that the Constitution accounts for slavery prompted abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison to call it "a Covenant with Death and a Leàgue with Hell And yet, many observers still regard the Constitution as a profound and dignified statement of national principles and core values, and a document which is rightly venerated as "higher law." Even in the spots where the Constitution seems to be inefficient -such as the federalist setup and separation of powers, which almost guarantee systemic - these parent inefficiencies can be celebrated as reflections of the American character and its ambivalence about power Should the Constitution be regarded as "higher law?" Why or why not?Explanation / Answer
In the entirely legitimate sense, the appropriate response is clearly "Yes." According to the Supremacy Clause the Constitution is the "incomparable rule that everyone must follow," and any statutes, directions, or authority approaches that are in struggle with the Constitution are invalid and can't stand, and any moves made by open authorities which are in opposition to the Constitution are void and of no impact. The Constitution is (really was more exact currently) considered the most elevated law since it was the arrangement of laws that our country was established on. The Articles of Confederation came before the Constitution, yet under the Articles, we were to a greater degree an accumulation of little country states. Higher law has a tendency to be the arrangement of fundamental, general laws that assurance the essential goals of a country.
History reveals to us that there are circumstances where great individuals are advocated in damaging the law. In Letter from a Birmingham Jail Martin Luther King, Jr., expresses that "one has an ethical obligation to ignore crooked laws," and statements St. Augustine, "An unjustifiable law is no law by any means," in supporting peaceful protection from isolation and separation. So also, in Germany in 1934 at awesome hazard to themselves, Karl Barth and Dietrich Bonhoeffer composed the Barmen Declaration attesting the autonomy of the Confessing Church from the German Christians and the Nazi administration. Be that as it may, Bonhoeffer and others went further. Raoul Wallenberg subtly and unlawfully carried Jewish kids out of Hungary, while Count von Stauffenberg submitted treachery, plotting and endeavoring to execute Hitler, activities for which Bonhoeffer, Wallenberg, von Stauffenberg and numerous others paid for with their lives.
The First Amendment's Freedom of Speech Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution at last approved and consolidated the rules that Martin Luther King, Jr. remained for, and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment (the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses) would completely bolster the thoughts communicated by Barth and Bonhoeffer in the Barmen Declaration.â Does the Constitution likewise epitomize the need for mystery and fierce infringement of the laws, for example, that of Wallenberg or von Stauffenberg, or is that a logical inconsistency in wording?
The Constitution without a doubt mirrors certain ethical standards. Due Process requires the legislature to give us reasonable preliminaries previously denying us of life, freedom, or property. Basic rights, for example, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Freedom of Religion, and the Right to Privacy imply that the legislature must be tolerant of words or activities that it can't help contradicting except if those activities are causing hurt, and at times notwithstanding when some mischief may result. Break even with Protection implies that the administration must treat gatherings of individuals similarly; individuals may not be dealt with distinctively except if they truly are diverse in some pertinent regard. Reasonableness, resilience, equity – these are for the most part parts of profound quality.
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.