Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The impact of a new deal
The impact of a new deal
The impact of a new deal
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The impact of a new deal
In 1995, there was great consternation when the Supreme Court ruled that carrying a gun near a school was not interstate commerce. On May 15, 2000, there was great consternation when the Supreme Court ruled that rape was not interstate commerce. It is a sign of how twisted the law has become that each of these common sense rulings was by a narrow 5 to 4 majority.
While the 1995 case involved a federal law against carrying a gun within a certain distance of a school, this year's case involved a woman suing two men for rape under a federal law. Neither case was about whether the law was good or bad. The cases were about Constitutional limits on the powers of the federal government -- and all our freedoms depend upon maintaining those limits.
The feds have been getting around the Constitutional limits by claiming to be regulating interstate commerce. But the Supreme Court didn't buy it.
Rape is already illegal in every state. What the recent ruling said in effect was: You are in the wrong courthouse, lady. Sue those so-and-so's in the state courthouse down the street. State courts have the power to do everything up to and including executing people, so sending a case to a state court is no wrist slap.
Why does it matter whether a case is tried in a federal court or a state or local court? It matters because a concentration of power is dangerous. The people who wrote the Constitution of the United States understood that -- and feared that -- even if too many of us today do not.
The familiar division of federal power among the President, the Congress and the Supreme Court was just the beginning. The Constitution also made it possible to impeach anybody who abused his power. In addition, the crucial 10th Amendment to the Constitution said that the federal government had the power to do only what it was specifically authorized to do, while the people or the states could do whatever they were not specifically forbidden to do.
This was understood for about 150 years. Then, during the heady days of the New Deal, the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce was stretched to include virtually anything that the politicians in Washington chose to regulate. In one case, the federal government's agricultural laws were applied to a man who grew his own food in his own backyard.
Instead, the Constitution grants Congress the power to pass legislation regulating all commerce bar intrastate trade (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 3). Coupled with the subsequent clause enabling Congress to pass any legislation they deem necessary in order to carry out the laws passed by dint of the body’s Constitutionally-enumerated powers (U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 18), the enumerated power to regulate interstate and international commerce endows Congress with a significant capacity to control the nation’s
With many recent incidents that involve guns between 2012 and 2013, gun control laws have become a hot topic in America. On one hand, after the horrific incident like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting at Newtown in 2012, most people wanting to limit guns from getting into the wrong by setting up a rigorous system that control who can and cannot obtain a gun. On the other hand, we have the people who believe that with such rigorous system in place is violated the individual rights that granted and protected by the United States Constitution. They believe that the rigorous system will prevent people from defending themselves and could be a violation of their privacy. Regardless of which side is right, if we want to understand more about our current conflict, we have to look back on how this hold debate started. The District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court case in 2008 that found the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 unconstitutional, which influence the individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense by questioning the Second Amendment and laws that restrict a person from acquire guns.
Tom can now start to show his maturity everywhere, including at home. In the beginning, Tom is running from Aunt Polly's punishments, hurries through chores, and plays hooky from school. When he convinces kids to do his job of whitewash the fence for him, it shows immaturity. Also when he runs away from home to the island, he doesn't leave a note.
A divergent set of issues and opinions involving medical care for the very seriously ill patient have dogged the bioethics community for decades. While sophisticated medical technology has allowed people to live longer, it has also caused protracted death, most often to the severe detriment of individuals and their families. Ira Byock, director of palliative medicine at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, believes too many Americans are “dying badly.” In discussing this issue, he stated, “Families cannot imagine there could be anything worse than their loved one dying, but in fact, there are things worse.” “It’s having someone you love…suffering, dying connected to machines” (CBS News, 2014). In the not distant past, the knowledge, skills, and technology were simply not available to cure, much less prolong the deaths of gravely ill people. In addition to the ethical and moral dilemmas this presents, the costs of intensive treatment often do not realize appreciable benefits. However, cost alone should not determine when care becomes “futile” as this veers medicine into an even more dangerous ethical quagmire. While preserving life with the best possible care is always good medicine, the suffering and protracted deaths caused from the continued use of futile measures benefits no one. For this reason, the determination of futility should be a joint decision between the physician, the patient, and his or her surrogate.
The Commerce Clause refers to Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress the power “to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes.” The commerce clause gives power to the government over the states. This was established in the Gibbons v. Ogden case in 1824. Gibbons and Ogden both were running their steamboats along the same route, on the Hudson River, which was between New Jersey and New York. Ogden got an injunction through a New York state court. This injunction concluded that Ogden had got exclusive rights by the state to operate that route. Gibbons had received his permit from the federal government. The New York court sided with Ogden and ordered Gibbons to stop operating his steamships. Gibbons then preceded to take this to the Supreme Court. John Marshall sided with Gibbons and said that New York’s grant to Ogden violated the federal licensing act of 1793 and for the first time the commerce clause was interpreted. It was concluded that the government had the power to regulate this because of the commerce clause. Since then the commerce clause has expanded the power of the government furthermore than the states would like it
Before the adoption of the United States Constitution, the U.S. was governed by the Articles of Confederation. These articles stated that almost every function of the government was chartered by the legislature known as Congress. There was no distinction between legislative or executive powers. This was a major shortcoming in how the United States was governed as many leaders became dissatisfied with how the government was structured by the Articles of Confederation. They felt that the government was too weak to effectively deal with the upcoming challenges. In 1787, an agreement was made by delegates at the Constitutional Convention that a national judiciary needed to be established. This agreement became known as The Constitution of the United States, which explicitly granted certain powers to each of the three branches of the federal government, while reserving other powers exclusively to the states or to the people as individuals. It is, in its own words, “the supreme Law of the Land” (Shmoop Editorial Team).
“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 right of all Americans to bear arms is a right the Founding Fathers held to equal importance as the Constitution itself. Gun control laws directly violate this right and therefore should not even be under consideration. Even if that issue is overlooked, gun control advocates state that in order to reduce firearm related violence, gun control laws must be implemented to remove the violence caused by firearms. Although this may seem reasonable, the consequences of such laws are ironically counterproductive; they exacerbate the problem instead of fixing it. Besides the fact that the American Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to bear arms, the idea of restricting gun ownership in order to reduce firearm-related violence would ultimately fail given the previous experiments of gun control in England and in numerous states.
People have questioned gun control long time. Many people wonder if anyone, aside from those who join the law force, should be allowed to carry guns. Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety” (Wright 4). Franklin understood that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens would not uphold their liberty. Some people who argue for gun control state many violent crimes involve guns. Others believe a child could find the gun and something bad could happen to the child or others when a gun is unsafely stored. People who argue against gun control might say there is a huge psychological gap between citizens who shoot to protect themselves or their property and those who go into schools and shoot at others. Criminals will always find a way around gun control laws and will be able to obtain and use guns illegally. The second amendment protects gun rights for individual citizens. Reasonable gun control laws and educational steps can be taken to protect the majority of U.S. citizens. Gun control does not only take guns away from criminals, gun control also limits law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves and their families when necessary.
The Founding Fathers limit the power of government in the Constitution utilizing many different tactics, many more than even the aforementioned. Their main intent was to make the nation less democratic and to keep the government small. The Constitution has accomplished the Founding Fathers' goal until now, and will hopefully continue doing so in the future.
g the Good Guys: School Zones and the Second Amendment” the author Grant Arnold compare and Heller case, District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 575 (2008), the US supreme court held, for the first time, that the US Constitution, under the Second Amendment, right to keep and bear arms was protected. Because of the media sensationalizing the school shootings, many looked at disarming society as a means to eliminate school shootings. Arnold further goes on to analyze the Second Amendment as it relates to the Gun Free Zones established by many state laws. "The United States Code (U.S.C.) is 'the codification by subject matter of the general and permanent laws of the United States.' Title 18 deals with crimes and criminal procedure. Under Part I (Crimes), chapter 44 deals with firearms.
One of the clauses that helped the government was the Taxing and Spending Clause, located in Article I, Section 8. The clause allows the federal government to tax citizens of the United States. Under the Articles of Confederation, the government had no power to lay and collect taxes, and had to rely on the demands of the governments of the states. Seeing that Congress had no power to independently raise its revenues, they proposed the Taxing and Spending Clause. Even if the government had the power tax citizens, they did not use it to only raise revenue, but they also taxed to regulate the commerce, taxed to discourage or suppress the commerce, or set tariffs to protect domestic markets from foreign control. On the case of United States v. Butler, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress did not have the power to impose tax due to the Agricultural Adjustment Act and deemed it unconstitutional because it attempted to regulate state activity, thus violating the Tenth Amendment. Regardless of its ruling, the case declared that the government did, in fact, have a wider power to tax, but there were limitations. In another court case, South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court declared that it was constitutional due to the fact that the states' highway funds were withheld if they did not raise their legal drinking age to 21 years old. This would bring more power to the federal government due to forc...
Admittedly, many would argue that there shouldn’t be gun control laws because its again the people’s rights. For Example, “According to the National Rifle Association (NRA), guns are used for self-defense 2.5 million times a year. [57] The police cannot protect everyone all of the time. 61% of men and 56% of women surveyed by Pew Research said that stricter gun laws would "make it more difficult for people to protect their homes and families." [58] Nelson Lund, JD, PhD, Professor at George Mason University School of Law, stated, "The right to self-defense and to the means of defending oneself is a basic natural right that grows out of the right to life" and "many [gun control laws] interfere with the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves against violent criminals." [59] Constitutions in
Tom is shown, throughout the story, as a typical boy of his time. He has a loving, happy home, with his devoted Aunt Polly to care for him. He is restricted by his home routine of prayers, meals, chores, bedtime, ETCTERA, but when his routine life gets TOO dull, he has the nearby river and woods, where he can go to escape. Though Tom is not " the model boy" of the village. He plays boyish pranks on Aunt Polly, Sid, his friends, and everyone in town. He steals, lies, plays hooky, fights, and goes swimming secretly, but he is a normal boy, what normal boys do at his age.
People change a lot over time. Sometimes they change in a bad way, sometimes in a good way.
Tom Sawyer has changed in many positive ways. Tom went from a more immature person to someone who follows the rules and listens to his guardian. Tom also experienced changed when he did not like to get in trouble but then later on in the book he took the blame for Becky Thatcher when she ripped the teacher's book.