Who said inalienable rights




















He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:.

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:. For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:.

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. Benefits may be such things as pay for work or the right to speak or vote. They may include almost anything that can be distributed among a group of people that would be considered useful or desirable, such as praise, awards, opportunities for education, jobs, membership in organizations, or money.

Burdens may include obligations, such as homework or chores, working to earn money, paying taxes, serving on juries, or caring for another person. They may include almost anything that can be distributed among a group of people that would be considered undesirable, such as blame or punishment for wrongdoing. Issues and controversies over the fair distribution of benefits and burdens in society are very common and often highly contested, such as debates over health care benefits and taxes.

Phrases in the Constitution that are designed to promote distributive justice include:. Article IV. Section 2. Amendment XIV.

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Amendment XV. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Amendment XIX. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Amendment XXIV. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Amendment XXVI. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any state on account of age.

Procedural justice. Procedural justice refers to the fairness of procedures or ways of doing things. More specifically, procedural justice refers to the following: the fairness of how information is gathered the fairness of how decisions are made. Procedural justice does not refer to the fairness of decisions themselves. That is a matter of either distributive or corrective justice.

The goals of procedural justice are the following: to increase the chances that all information necessary for making wise and just decisions is gathered to ensure the wise and just use of information in the making of decisions to protect the right to privacy, human dignity, freedom, and other important values and interests such as distributive and corrective justice to promote efficiency. Scholars and others who have studied procedural justice often claim that it is the keystone of liberty or the heart of the law.

Observers of world affairs have sometimes claimed that the degree of procedural justice present in a country is a good indicator of the degree of freedom, respect for human rights, and other basic rights in that country. A lack of procedural justice is often considered an indication of an authoritarian or totalitarian political system. Respect for procedural justice is often a key indicator of a democratic political system. Phrases in the Constitution designed to promote procedural justice include:.

Article I, Section 9. No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed. Article III, Section 3. The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

Amendment V. No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Amendment VI. In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Amendment VII. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Corrective justice. Corrective justice concerns the fairness of responses to wrongs or injuries suffered by a person or group.

Fair responses to wrongs and injuries may vary widely. In some instances, one may ignore what has happened, forgive the person causing the wrong or injury, or use the situation to educate the person to prevent a repetition of the event. In other situations, one might wish to require a person to compensate in one way or another for a wrong or injury done to others. In some instances, courts of law may punish wrongdoers by fines, imprisonment, or even death.

Corrective justice has one principal goal: the fair correction of a wrong or injury. In addition, we may want to prevent or discourage future wrongful or careless conduct by teaching a lesson to the wrongdoer or making an example of him or her.

Thus, the purposes or goals of corrective justice are the following:. Correction, prevention, and deterrence are essential to the very existence of society. Without efforts to serve these goals, disorder and chaos may result. Ensuring fair responses to wrongs and injuries is important not only with regard to criminal behavior and civil matters but also in families, schools, and other areas of the private sector.

Phrases in the Constitution that are designed to promote corrective justice include:. Amendment VIII. Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Today, laws enacted by Congress that promote domestic tranquility include those dealing with terrorism, providing government the capacity to enforce the laws and keep the peace, providing for national security, providing for and protecting peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, and providing citizens with peaceful means of attempting to monitor the actions of their government and air their grievances.

Tranquility for the Framers meant the absence of riots, rebellions, and similar symptoms of social disorder. They were greatly concerned with domestic tranquility because social disorder had become an increasingly fearful, dangerous, and common state of affairs in the new states. It threatened the political stability of the country, which had a weak central government that could not control the conflicts that were taking place in the states.

Economic turmoil and violence in post-Revolutionary America, — When we study history, however, we realize that many people in the past lacked—and a great many around the world today still lack—the freedom to exercise many of the rights we take for granted. The American Founders, however, argued that people have rights regardless of whether they are able to put them into practice.

They could be denied and violated, but only under carefully limited circumstances could they rightfully be taken away. Governments were legitimate to the extent that they protected rights. Those that arbitrarily took them away possessed no moral authority.

All men are equal in the sense that, since we are all human, we are born with certain inherent, natural, and unalienable rights. Of course, in order to protect the rights of peaceful people, it could sometimes be necessary to infringe the rights of aggressors. The Founders understood that criminals who are a threat to the safety and property of others, for example, need to be prevented from exercising the right to move about where they please.

In other words, a right is one thing, but the freedom to exercise it is something else. The Founders were well-read in history, so they understood that most people in the world could not easily exercise their rights to practice a religion, or keep the money they earn. They were proud of their heritage as Englishmen. While the rights listed in the Declaration of Independence—life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness—were inalienable, the Founders understood that individuals are often stopped from exercising them.

The Founders knew full well that while we are born with rights, we need some protection in order to have the freedom to exercise those rights. Legal rights would include the right to vote, the specific methods by which fair trials are conducted, and copyrights and patents—all of which might be defined and protected in different ways in different countries or states, based on their particular customs and beliefs.

The Founders also recognized, from reading history as well as from their own experience, that governments are often the greatest enemy of individual rights. At the same time they knew that without a government to restrain them, people tend to form gangs or rely on their families and tribes to protect them.



0コメント

  • 1000 / 1000