Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The federal government importance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The federal government importance
I won’t tell you how you’re wrong, but I will remind you of two things: First the FBI, at Waco, got their asses handed to them to begin with, and then in an unconstitutional move, condoned by the White House (Democratic Socialists) they employed the Military (an absolute violation of law, they called it limited assistance by national guard, not restrained by the Posse Comitatus Act) to first overcome and then Murder 76 Americans, many children. Like so many laws, after they are broken by those who make them, government, they front loads public opinion and withholds their illegal actions from the public and courts. Second, this is the very reason the Constitution prohibits the creation of a standing army, funded for more than two years, and
Since Martin Bryant’s massacre on Port Arthur, the legal system in Australia is amended and reformed gun laws to create a more effective legislation. Gun-related deaths have since been drawn to more efficient attention in Australian psyche, whilst the issue of gun-laws on a global level still remains as a conspiracy in many countries. The massacre left the Australian nation in shock, with a heavily involved attitude on behalf of local and national police, and thousands devastated at the aftermath. The legislation of gun-laws and amendments continues to be controversial, with punishments including Bryant’s being one of popular debate, and the general ownership and use of guns causing conflict within the interrelationship of the legal system and society.
United States is a country that has problems with gun control, and this issue has many debates between whether or not people should be allowed to carry a gun on them. This free county not only for speech and religion, but also allows people to have the right to bear arms. The Second Amendment of the United States was written by our Founding Fathers,“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” (Government). The main purpose of the Second Amendment when our Founding Fathers wrote this amendment was to help the American citizens to defend themselves from the government at that time, and other countries from invading their properties. However, the Second Amendment could be the opposite of what our Founding Fathers wanted it to be in the twenty-first century, because many criminals are taking advantage of the right to carry guns, which in example results with the purpose of showing off with their friends, revenge for their gang’s members, or try to be like their favorite hero in the movie they had watched. On July 20, 2012, a massive shooting occurred inside of a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. The tragedy happened during a midnight screening of the film The Dark Knight Rises which killed twelve people and injuring seventy others. In response, this alarmed our government to rethink about the current gun control law in America. In A Well Regulated Militia by Saul Cornell, the author informed to his audience the different views of gun ownership in early America, which part was the most important part of the debate, how did slavery affect the debate over militias in the South, the Continental army officer’s views, and the arguments be...
The farmers of our Constitution recognized the need for separate powers as well as checks and balances among the executive, legislative and judicial branches. This in turn helps to "provide for the common defense". Separation of powers prevents one branch from becoming excessively dominant over the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.: In order to accede to the preamble and adhere in its goals, the Constitution ensures this is by clearly stating the authority of the Congress in Article I Section 8 and the authority of the President in Article II Section 2. These fixed powers in the Constitution clearly state that one cannot act without permission or authorization of another. It is designed to that one cannot take action without consent of the other branch. This is prevalent in Article I Section 7 that states the process of how a law is passed. The fact that there are clear steps to the initiation of a law states the importance of separation of powers so that a single dominant branch does not arise.
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states "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.
is the use of a Militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing
The debate over the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 revealed bitter controversies on a number of issues that had been developing since the penning of the Constitution. The writers of the document knew that over time the needs of the nation and its people would change, and therefore provided for its amendment. But by not expressly delegating powers to specific organizations, whether the federal government, state governments, or the people themselves, they inadvertently created a major problem in the years to follow: Constitutional interpretation.Shortly after the Constitution's ratification, two distinct camps formed, each believing in opposite manners of interpretation. One group, the Federalists, led by the newly appointed Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, thought that the Constitution should be interpreted very loosely. He claimed that the Constitution contained powers other than those delegated or enumerated. These unspecified powers were implied powers.
In 1798, when Congress passed both the Alien and Sedition Acts, it was very much constitutional. These acts were definitely in the best interest of America. America was a significantly young nation, at the time, and could not afford to create problems caused by foreigners coming to America. They did not have enough national power to sustain order if everyone was attacking the newly created laws, and many of those rebels being citizens from foreign countries, nevertheless.
However it is wrong to accuse some one of such vile and treasonable actions without solid evidence to back up his arguments.
The Patriot Act has been under scrutiny and opposition since its creation following 9/11. When 9/11 struck it was clear that Americas intelligence was lacking in some specific way, but it was translated that America needed greater allowance for gathering information. The Patriot Act was signed on October 26, 2001, very close to 9/11. It can be concluded that the Patriot Act was signed with such extreme ability’s applied, because of how close it was signed after 9/11. The Act Greatly expands the liberty’s if law enforcement in their efforts to gather information, which in turn imposes on the privacy of the American people. The FBI has the ability to study any citizen suspected of terrorism, and has access to all their information. Wire Taps and other invasive action are allowed and granted by the Patriot Act. Was the Patriot Act signed to quickly? Are its measures to extreme? When is the line drawn on how much power the government can have? Is the Patriot Act effective enough that it is necessary? Should we as Americans willing to trade freedom for safety? Can the Patriot Act effectively stop or hinder terrorist attacks; has its stopped enough attacks to be validated? Another question is does America want a government that has that much power, how much are we as Americans willing to sacrifice, and how much more liberty’s is the government going take. If the government can pass the patriot act, what other legislation can they pass? In reality it all comes down to the American people, we are democracy but do we have the power in are hands? When finding all these questions one asks do we need an act that is in fact this controversial? Is the Patriot Act a necessary evil? To find this answer we have to answer all the questio...
The second amendment states “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The Founding Fathers included this in the Bill of Rights because they feared the Federal Government might oppress the population if the people did not have the means to defend themselves as a nation or individuals.
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. Amendment II
The G.I. bill, officially known as the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, was created to help veterans of the World War II. The bill established veterans’ hospitals, provided for vocational rehabilitation, and made low-interest mortgages available. Prior to the war, higher education in the United States was mostly private, liberal arts, small-college, rural, residential, elitist, and often discriminatory from institution to institution with respect to race and religion. Not only did the GI Bill make access to higher education practical for men from all backgrounds, it changed the meaning of higher education in public consciousness from the 1950s onward. (Cohen, May 20, 2015)
I suppose the Servicemen Readjustment Act of 1944 -- commonly known as the GI bill -- played no role in the advancement of the middle class and the economy?
I heartily accept the motto, "That government is best which governs least"; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe--"That government is best which governs not at all"; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which the will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.
it was plain and simply wrong . The way the FBI handled the case was atrocious