Amendment 2: Case Study

On December 15, 1791, the Bill of Rights was ratified effective by Congress. These first ten amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America promised the states certain rights and freedoms which could not be infringed by the government. After all, the founding fathers knew from experience that men in their weakness were often tempted by power. They had become all too familiar with this when under the control of King George in England. Therefore, in order to protect the future people of their beautiful country, they promised certain liberties which could not be taken away. Every single one of these freedoms is important for the United States of America. However, the second amendment is especially important

     “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 27th amendment was proposed on September 25, 1789, and it was ratified on May 7, 1992. It was necessary to create this amendment because it was used to force congressman to focus on their work, and not personal issues. The 27th amendment proposed that Congress couldn’t raise their salaries right away; any salary increases are pushed to after an election. In the U.S today, this amendment allows people to trust the government more, and not be suspicious about their work. When the amendment was being ratified, there were many controversies. During the late 1700’s, James Madison only got six states—Maryland, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, Delaware, and Vermont- to ratify the amendment. However, that

The Entente’s odds in 1917 were grim. Both major offensives ended up in failure, the Russians abandoned the war, the Italians were close to annihilation after Caporetto, and the Americans sent over troops in small droves that were not battle ready. However, behind the wins of the Triple Alliance, things were not boding well for them. The British blockade was slowly starving them, and Germany’s primary ally, Austria-Hungary, was more of a liability than a help.

The truth to the statement that “Texas has a love affair with the 2nd amendment more than any of the other amendments” is circumstantial depending on the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment is the most challenged amendment because it is so vaguely worded and not straight forward. 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.” This somewhat incoherent statement leaves policy makers wondering whether the founding fathers were trying to protect gun ownership rights only for purposes of military duty and collective security or wanted to make guns accessible to all so that they could protect themselves. In order to asses if Texas’ love affair with the second amendment, we must look at the second amendment from both sides of the interpretation.

While many have debated the necessity of a formal Amendment to the Constitution that actually bars state cessation, many have overlooked the Articles of Confederation, a document that pre-dates the Constitution. As it stands, the Articles of Confederations addresses this very issue. Historically speaking, in the 1860’s, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story successfully laid this argument to rest, pointing out that “the term perpetual, found in the Articles of the Confederation, deemed the Union indissoluble” (McClanahan, 2012).

What does the second amendment mean in the constitution.The second amendment is about Gun Control. What is Gun Control? Gun Control is your rights to own and use a gun. Guns are very dangerous and they are a serious issue. There are tons of accidental deaths caused by not using the correct safety rules. What does the second amendment say about gun control in the constitution? The amendment stated that “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”. But do we all agree on this amendment?

In his book, “The Liberty Amendments” Mark Levin argues well on how the slow creep of federal power in the United States has slowly disenfranchised the local government under the guise of propagating and deifying a ‘national government approved’ form of democracy. The people received a message of nationalism, and personal power while at the same time receiving a watered down version of what the founding fathers had originally intended.

Hi, I'm Rory Trosclair and I want to be your next president. I would make a great president because I will stand up for your second amendment rights, I will stop the killing of babies because of abortions, and help make sure everybody has the equal right to marry. I'll also make sure that no legal American is left without a job because of illegal immigrants coming to the United States.

Ratified December 15, 1791, the bill of rights was added to the U.S. Constitution as a way to ensure the protection of every individual’s rights. The bill itself is a list of rights which limits the power of the federal government and gives power back to the people in the form of rights and liberties. Some of this rights include freedom of speech, religion, and press, but perhaps the one right that still to this day has many people questioning the meaning behind its wording is the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment states that “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” (Acosta, 2008). In short the amendment grants the right to bear arms,

The Fourth Amendment states in part “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated….” 14 United States Code 89 gives the U.S. Coast Guard authority to board, inspect, or seize any U.S. vessel on the high seas or in U.S. territorial waters. The Supreme Court has ruled not every search or seizure requires probable cause or a search warrant, however, these are the exception to the rule. The Coast Guard’s blanket authority to board any U.S. vessel at any time harkens back to the British treatment of colonial America and fly’s in the face of the Fourth Amendment.

The United States of America has always been referred to as the land of the free. The United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights were put in place to ensure that the citizen’s basic rights were not violated. Even with these documents in place, certain rights have often been the center of heavy debate. The fourth amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures, or the first amendment which protects free speech, or the fifth amendment which protects you from self incrimination. Of all these rights that have been brought into question, the most recent is the second amendment which secures the right for the people to keep and bear arms.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution was adopted on December 15, 1791 protects the right for people to “keep and bear arms.” This issue is always a controversial topic not only around election time but becoming more and more a subject for conversation everywhere we go. Gun ownership in the U.S. has a tremendous high rate as well as gun violence. At least 270 million firearms are owned by Americans and found in 47% of homes. In 2015, an estimated 13,286 people were killed by guns and 26,819 injured. When it comes to the workplace, roughly 2 million employees are affected by some form of work place violence and is not always about work. Two-thirds of homicides in the U.S. are a result of personal relationship problems.

The framers of our Constitution knew that time has a way of changing countries and their citizens. Our country was in a whirlwind of change in 1789 as people were experiencing freedom from the tyranny of England for the first time in their lives. Our country was being molded and formed into a great nation by the founding fathers. Expectations and rules had to be set to protect the rights of the minorities and majorities. Amendments to the Constitution were written to ensure equality for all in changing times.

Each individual justifies their actions and wishes by appealing to various moral principles based on the local or individual conception of the good. In the argument of morality and where are those moral judgments come from, brings us to the central question of ethics, that is “What is the good for human beings?” More than two thousand years ago, Aristotle gives his answer in Nicomachen Ethics suggesting that the purpose of morality is to enable us to lead good lives, and it is necessary to acquire virtues to achieve the good. However, this view of ethics based on virtues led to a relativism toward the notion that believes the criteria of ethics is tied up with virtues which the local and individual approves to be good. In other words, the conception of goodness is based on the tradition or custom of the local society/groups or the individual. Therefore, many suggest that the high degree of individualism that was shown in Aristotle’s virtues ethics theory proves that he supports cultural relativism. In this paper, I will defend Aristotelian ethical approach based on virtues and refute relativists argument by showing the objections that against the local ethical objectivity.