A Law Is Just Or Unjust Essay

1) Since the injured plaintiff was not wearing a seatbelt, why is Ford being sued for failing to test the seatbelt sleeve?

The purpose of our government is to serve its’ people, woe to the United States if they discourage their citizens of speaking up for their convictions. According to Henry David Thoreau their convictions are worth being heard, “The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way”. Ultimately, real change and progression is made at the hands of the common man. It is utterly important to remember where the power should lie and peaceful protest is a tool for providing that

This has been a massive concern for many anti-Trump protestors because they believe that Hillary Clinton should have won because she won the popular vote. Even though Clinton won the popular vote, Trump won the Electoral College, which is why he was elected President of the United States. As King stated, “We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly affects all indirectly.” (King, 1963). This quote applies perfectly for our countries current status because all of the voters who do not support Trump are tied to him and his decisions for the next four years. With King’s view of civil disobedience, these protestors are not justified in their protesting of Trump because a process that has been used for hundreds of years elected him legally. In order for these protestors to civilly disobey in unison with King’s views, they must protest the Electoral College and not the man that the Electoral College elected. Individuals may not agree with Trump being elected, but until he advocates an immoral political action they must not protest against him directly. Part of King’s beliefs includes him being a Christian and obeying the laws of the land. For anybody who is elected legally to become President of the United States, those that follow King’s views are subject to obeying the governing authority as they are in accordance with the laws of God. As King states in his letter, “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” (King, 1963). This means that it is not justified for anti-Trump protestors to protest out of anger that their candidate of the popular vote did not win because it is in accordance with the authority of the government, which has been in place for

We, as U.S. citizens, are guaranteed basic equal rights, but do these rights extend to all U.S. citizens? Honestly, they do not. Homosexuals have had their rights have been minimized or depleted since U.S. citizens can remember. It should not matter what ethnicity, sexuality, or religion you have; you deserve equal rights if you are a citizen of the U.S. because you pay the same taxes as everyone else in this country and are guaranteed the same rights under The Bill of Rights. Homosexuals can be charged with the same crime as a heterosexual, and they have the right to a speedy fair trial. However, homosexuals have been suffering injustices for far too long ranging from being banned from joining the military to getting married, and they are not allowed to search for their pursuit of happiness because other U.S. citizens continue to shut this right down. This is unjust because everyone is guaranteed their right to the pursuit of happiness under their basic Human Rights unless you are homosexual, and that is flat out discrimination.

However, one of the most popular forms to share and demonstrate our opinions as citizens are marches and protests. Parades and marches were indeed a from the Progressives used to publicize and convince many about their efforts. Despite that, many of these parades, especially in Washington D.C. on March 3, 1913 faced violent responses that included in the assault of many women. This was not always the case. For example, a nonviolent mass direction action is the March on Washington on August of 1963. This march was part of the Civil Rights act movement. This march led from Washington monumental to the Lincoln Memorial and consisted of songs, chants and speeches of civil right leaders that fought for jobs and freedom. Some of the most notable speeches that came out of this march was Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I have a dream speech”, which is known to promote racial justice and equality. The previous examples, demonstrated marches and protests for social reforms, but not all marches are related social reforms. Some marches like the Anti- War march in 2003 that voices the opposition of the invasion of Iraq. More than 10 million people in over 600 cities joined these efforts to voice their discontent with the Bush Administration, but many felt and still feel ignored by the administration. In this case, no agreement or compromise could be reached. In our current society, the rise of racial unrest led to various marches such as the Anti- Trump and May Day marches. Marches and protests are a very popular way Americans and citizens from all over the country still use to voice their opinions. They are planned with the goal to lead to social reform or social change. However not all marches end up being nonviolent such as the March on Washington. In fact, many end up violently leading to the involvement of the police. Marches have always existed and will

What is law? Law is a system of rules used to govern a society and control the behaviors of its members. In this case, Martin Luther King is charged for breaking a law. King questions the differences between just and unjust laws to justify his actions in Birmingham and the charges of breaking laws willingly. Defending his willingness to break laws, King argues, “How can you advocate breaking laws and obeying other?” He answers to accusation of his willingness to break laws with a well-written argument of what is just and unjust laws. Martin Luther King uses the definition, the categories, and the implication of the law excellently to answer the charges of breaking laws willingly.

A few of these rights, but to name a few are the right to vote, the freedom of speech and press, and the right to bear arms. We have fought for these rights through the revolutionary war, the war of 1812, and the civil war. In more modern conflicts we have fought to spread these rights to other places around the world. We have worked to set up democracies in the middle east where the people have been oppressed for generations. Due to this we have a duty as americans to use these rights. For example despite having the right to vote only about 55-65% of us vote on who our next president should be. That's not including the percent of people who skip voting for state and city elections. There are up to 45% of people who are not voting,and it is one of the most important rights that we have been given as Americans. It took generations for this right to reach women in america, whom only got the right to vote in 1920. It took even longer for it to be legal for black people to vote who only got this right in 1965. However there are other rights that we have been happily exercising such as the freedom of speech and press. The media uses their right to say what they want to and report the stories that they want to without government interference. In america we all have a responsibility to use our rights and appreciate them, because of the shear number of men whom have gone to war, to fight and die for those

The history of the United States is painted with the blood of protesters and activists who stood up for injustice and inequality. They fought for freedom, equal rights, equal protection and the right to vote. Without their blood, sweat and tears, our world today would look a whole lot different. In of the United States government's history states that the original founding fathers allowed only wealthy white landowners to vote and participate

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

Our justice system regularly makes decisions that would be universally considered just and in the very same day makes decisions that are universally considered unjust. Based on this, justice must be more about the intention. For the sake of argument imagine a judge who intends with every fiber of his being to be just, makes a decision that in the end turns out to be unjust. I would say this man could still be considered just. Regardless of the outcome, the intention should determine the question of just or unjust. If that same judge admits his mistake and does his best to rectify the situation, he would certainly be considered just. On the other hand if he realizes the mistake and does nothing then he is most unjust. Human beings are incapable of unfailing justice, but when you intend to be just, you should then be considered a just person. So justice must be the intention of the person or entity to pursue truth and fairness.

Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces

Throughout history, people have been trying to create an improved, fair, and equal system of justice, not only to better society in which one lives, but to also find a sense of meaning in what responsibilities people should hold within their civilizations in order to create this just way of living. As early as the Old Testament within the Bible, we see examples of how the Hebrews formed their own justice. This can be seen in the in text of the Ten Commandments which were written in a form of law. Laws were significant even in this basic form of context, such as the Ten Commandments, which offered the ideas of right and wrongdoings and the sin for violating others for one’s own benefit. This not only

Rule of law in simplest terms means law rules, that is, law is supreme. The term “Rule of law‟ is derived from the French phrase “la principle de legalite” (the principle of legality) which means a government on principle of law and not of men. Rule of Law is a viable and dynamic concept and, like many other concepts, is not capable of any exact definition. It is used in contradistinction to rule of man. Sir Edward Coke, the Chief Justice in King James I‟s reign is said to be the originator of this principle. However, concrete shape was given to it by Professor A.V. Dicey, for the first time in his book “Law of the Constitution” (1885) in the form of three principles.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.