Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Essay on us amendments
Essay on us amendments
Essay on us amendments
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
In the United States, we have 10 Amendments that form our Bill of Rights. But in a different world, were humans were overthrown by animals, they have a different thought process of these. Some of our amendments may be the same as theirs. Some of our amendments could be way off from theirs. All together, some of our amendments could be totally ignored, or denied, by these animals and the society they run. One amendment that stuck with them from our original Bill of Rights was the 1st amendment, which states "Freedom of religion, speech, and press; rights of assembly and petition." We can tell because after they overthrow the farmer, they form a set of rules, most like amendments. They say " I merely repeat, remember always your duty of enmity towards Man and all his ways. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy. Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend. And remember also that fighting against Man, we must not come to resemble him. Even when you have conquered him, do not adopt his vices. No animal must ever live in a house, or sleep in a bed, or wear clothes, or drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or touch money, or engage in trade. All the habits are evil. And, above all, no animal must ever …show more content…
The reason they denied this was because when Major was telling his speech, he said that animals must not resemble man. The text states, "No animal must ever live in a house. or sleep in a bed, or wear clothes, or drink alcohol, or smoke tobacco, or touch money, or engage in trade." This surely means that no animal should be able to touch weapons, because that is also "a wicked way of the man." The 3rd Amendment didn't really apply to them, since the only battle they fought was "The Battle of the Cowshed", and the humans pretty much lost in a matter of minutes. One sheep was killed, though, making the animals angrier and scaring the humans away, winning the
...tempt to diffuse violence. To even state that mans use of animals is immoral, and to claim that we have no right over our lives and must sacrifice our welfare for the sake of beings that cannot even think or grasp the concept of morality is ridicules. We would be elevating amoral animals to a moral level that is higher than our own, thus granting animals rights is not only fictional but wrong. In the words of Mat Block “Cows or cats would eat us to if they had a chance. Do not mistake a cats respect for one that is dominate for love, they are killers plain and simple and if you do not believe me ask their friends the birds”
The Constitution lays out the rights and obligations of the newly formed United States government. But, what of the rights and obligations of its citizens? Starting in 1791 only two years after the Constitution was ratified the Constitution began to evolve and this process continues to this day. The first ten amendments to the Constitution are known as the Bill of Rights. This Bill of Rights outlines the protections which citizens have from the government of the United States. The question raised in the title of this paper is; Are the Bill of Rights, written well over 200 years ago still relevant today? Of course they are and probably even more so. To illustrate this fact we will examine each of the ten amendments rewrite each one using common everyday language of today and if possible discuss why this was important in 1791 and why we may or may not need this document in writing today. In restating each amendment I will try to write it as if it is a brand new document, which is a stretch to say the least. With out the struggle of the colonies through war and abuse by the English Monarchy would one have the foresight to see how a government may take for granted the rights of its citizenry?
The English Bill of Rights is an Act of the Parliament of England that deals with constitutional matters and sets out certain basic civil rights. This constitution was passed on December 16, 1689.The Bill was passed to declare laws and liberties of the people. Also the people wanted separation of powers and limits the of power to the king and queen. It guarantees the rights of enhancing the democratic election and to get more freedom of speech. No armies should be raised in peacetime, no taxes can be levied, without the authority of parliament. Laws should not be dispensed with, or suspended, without the consent of parliament and no excessive fines should imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. King James the 2nd, had abused his
In 1789 the United states created the Bill of Rights to the Constitution after they gained independence from the British. Then in 1791 They added the amendments to the Constitution. There are many similarities to the Bill of Rights and the amendments in the Constitution but many people have a misconception that they are the same. There are some differences between the two and let’s see what are the difference in the two.
After reading “Do Animals Have Rights?” by Carl Cohen, the central argument of the article is that rights entail obligations. Cohen examines the syllogism that all trees are plants but does not follow the same that all plants are trees. Cohen explains the syllogism through the example of hosts in a restaurant. They have obligation to be cordial to their guests, but the guest has not the right to demand cordiality. Cohen explains using animals, for example his dog has no right to daily exercise and veterinary care, but he does have the obligation to provide those things for her. Cohen states that animals cannot be the bearers of rights because the concept of rights is essentially human; it is rooted in, and has force within, a human moral world. Humans must deal with rats-all too frequently in some parts of the world-and must be moral in their dealing with them; but a rat can no more be said to have rights than a table can be said to have ambition.
Tenth Amendment Our bill of rights all began when James Madison, the primary author of the constitution, proposed 20 amendments to the bill of rights and not the ten we know of today. Madison sent these twenty proposed rights through the House and the Senate and was left with twelve bills of rights. Madison himself took some of it out. These amendments were then sent to the states to be ratified. Virginia was the tenth state out of the fourteenth states to approve 10 out of 12 amendments.
What does freedom really mean? Many people today are aware that they have a right to freedom, but do not know what that really means. Religion, speech, press, assembly and petition are the five freedoms that the First Amendment specifically speaks about. Let’s take a look at the definition of each of the five freedoms, what the government says about our freedom, how it is acted out and portrayed in America, and a few case studies involving the different aspects of the First Amendment.
Indians understood animals to be powerful creatures possessing their own spiritual power and deserving of respect, but available as a food source. Therefore, Natives struggled to understand that animals could be property, but under the pressure of the English invasion attempted to integrate livestock into their lives. On the other hand, the English saw animals as property and as an indication of the supremacy of sophisticated agricultural culture. In part two, “Settling with Animals” Anderson examines the development of livestock agriculture in North America. The imported animals changed not only the land, but also “the hearts and minds, and behavior of the people who dealt with them”. (p.5) When the English arrived in America with their livestock the colonists became less focused on the animals and more focused on the cultivating of fields for crops for export and food purposes. The lack of labor and costs involved in the operation of farm lands led to the English being forced to allow their animals to roam freely in the woods. Ultimately, they lost control of the livestock and many of the herds became as feral as the animals the Indians typically
In conclusion, captive hunting ranches exist and seem to thrive especially in the state of Texas. From primitive times, people have hunted as a means of survival although this is no longer the situation. Instead, hunters as participants in captive hunting ranches hunt for the thrill and do not necessarily respect life of the hunted animal. These hunters seem to care more about the trophy prize in the form of the mounted animal head rather than about respecting the life of the animal and honoring its features. The concept of "fair chase" in these canned hunts simply does not exist. To many hunters and the public at large, canned hunts occurring on private land is an artificially expensive manner of achieving something in name only. It cheapens the concept and challenge of hunting and respecting life for all it is worth. As man has dominion over other creatures, it is sad that the battle is lost. The right for survival and achievement should be inherently good. There are a whole host of other problems which have been mentioned. Care must be taken to ensure captive hunting occurs for the right reasons. Man can be no better than the hunted unless he thinks...
The first amendment of the Bill of Rights gave them the freedom of speech, religion, assembly, and press. Every recognized citizen was allowed and entitled to their opinions in addition to Congress being restricted from creating any law regarding religion. The third and fourth amendments were written to secure a person’s privacy. A soldier, whether or not the country was in a time of war, had to ask for permission from the owner of any home to reside there. In legal cases, a person’s property and belongings was safe from violation unless a warrant is issued, with plausible reasons, to be allowed to do so. In accordance with the second amendment, a person had the natural right to bear arms. In other words, every recognized citizen should have the right to carry a weapon on their person or in their home. All in all, the context of the Constitution was meant to insure the security of all American citizens, again the ones who were considered citizens. Around the eighteenth century most people, most of them being rich white male landowners, would, and have, turned the other cheek to anything brought up from the Constitution that didn’t benefit them in any way. Admittedly their selfish desires to benefit themselves instead of the rest of the American population greatly helped in implanting the fortification of America’s rights. Yet when you think deeper about it, the reassurance of achieving your rights is
There has been a long debate about how the citizens of the United States should interpret the constitution. The first amendment protects people's right to speak freely without punishment from the government. Society must distinguish between is speech versus "hate" speech. Hate speech has no place in the country because of the moral destruction it inflicts on the citizens. Additionally, people often use the internet as a way of conveying hate speech, which is a crime known as cyber bullying. The damage that hate speech inflicts on a person obstructs their path in gaining the pursuit of happiness, which is the cornerstones of the nation. The American people are given the right to observe freedom of speech, however, this does not grant freedom
Animals are not sort of beings with basic rights to life, liberty, and property, whereas human being, in the main, are just such beings.
These abilities allowed our forefathers to create the Constitution for the welfare of human beings then and future generations. And in recent years, human conscience has, also, established animal protection laws for their welfare. The only rights for humans from the Constitution of the United States that possibility apply and compare with animals would be: (1) personal security, not to be killed, injured or abused and (2) moving freely
Animals have feelings. It’s been proven numerous amounts of time by animal behaviorists. Even animals as simple as a fish have feelings, they feel pain just as we do. It was stated by Victoria Braithwaite in her article “Hooked on a Myth”, that fish, just as humans, have nociceptors that alert the fish that they are in pain. Your dog yelps when you step on its foot on accident, does it not? Do people think that if they shoot an animal it doesn’t feel it? This is why I think we need an animal bill of rights. Animals, of all kinds, need the ability to live freely in the world without people killing and hurting them without consequence. We need a bill of rights for animals and focuses mainly on animal abuse, destroying habitats/ deforestation, poaching and experimentation. Animals have feelings so, we shouldn’t let them have to live their lives in fear.
Have you ever wondered how the world would be if animals had a voice? Some have great intelligence already but imagine with the ability to speak they will evolve into a new species. Animals have many similarities with humans. For example they think, feel, and live exactly like people. The only difference that there maybe is speech. Animals can only do so much when they are trying to communicate. For example, they whimper, growl, or bark when they are in pain. Animals cannot tell a person if they are in pain or if they are unhappy. That is why humans have to be the voice for animals. While exploring these things, I agree with Tom Regan that animals should have rights.