Moral Conflict Within The United States Constitution

The United States was founded on the belief that every man has “certain inalienable Rights.” Not until ninety years later, however, when slavery was abolished did the United States actually offer these “Rights” to all of its citizens. The 19th century was turbulent time of stress and change for America. One of the most controversial dilemmas was the issue of slavery. Slavery was conceived by many to be morally wrong, and it undermined America’s most valued beliefs. Despite this inconsistency, slavery was still widely supported and permitted out of economic necessity in the South.

A constitution is a written document that sets forth the fundamental rules by which a society is governed. Throughout the course of history the United States has lived under two Constitutions since the British-American colonies declared their independence from Great Britain in 1776. First in line was the Articles of Confederation (1789-1789) followed by the Constitution of United States of America (1789-present). The Articles of Confederation was the first formal written Constitution of America that specified how the national government was to operate. Unfortunately, the Articles did not last long. Under the words of the Article’s power was limited; Congress could make decisions, but had no power to enforce them. Also the articles stated

The US Constitution states “We The People of the United states in order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for more common defense, promote the General Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” The main purpose of the U.S Constitution is to establish the basic rights of all American Citizens. This follows that every United States Citizens have equal rights. Belonging to a minority group because of culture, religion or race does not assert that one is unconstitutional. In times of war, evacuation of minority groups only in NOT constitutional; however, evacuation of ALL United

Court decisions are very delicate, it’s not always about what is morally correct but more importantly about what is politically correct. It may be hard to side with the law sometimes due to cases dealing with cruel subjects such as slavery. Although, in times like this judges must maintain on the right track following what’s constitutionally correct. For example in the Dred Scott Case, he obviously lost his case since at the time slavery was legal. Many people, said it was erroneous, mistaken, and fallacious, but put the pieces together, it was written on the constitution that slavery was allowed. Of course, bondage is and wasn’t virtuous but did the court really make the wrong decision? In respect to this situation Abraham Lincoln made a speech to his fellow citizens. Abraham Lincoln did not agree. During his speech he said “But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this.”

One very monumental event in the history of the United States is the ratification and signing of the United States Constitution.This took place in the year 1787 .The Bill of Rights is actually the part of the constitution that defines the rights of the citizens of the United States.This significant document helped spell out individual rights and freedoms.Although the signing of the U.S. Constitution solved many problems it failed to solve the problem of discrimination against African Americans,women and gays and along with that the ongoing issue of Slavery.

In the history of the United States Supreme Court, there are a multitude of cases that have left an indelible mark in the tapestry of American history, culture, and society. Among these landmark disputes may be found issues as divisive as reproductive health, fundamental economic freedoms, the power of the Supreme Court and, of course, race. Among these, Dred Scott v. Sanford occupies a special place. Often called as the “worst decision made by the Supreme Court”, Dred Scott v. Sanford provided an impetus for slavers to continue an injustice that had existed since the colonial era . By deciding the way it did, the United States Supreme Court also created a divide between the northern and southern states – a divide so great that it eventually led to the American Civil War. Such an enormous effect on the sentiment of the times warrants a closer look at the decisions of the justices involved in the Dred Scott decision. Doing so will also shed light into the intricate logic behind the justices’ decisions – essentially the reasons why they concurred or dissented from the main opinion written by Chief Justice Roger B. Taney. The process of interrogating the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution will also reveal the fundamental societal sentiment regarding slavery and African Americans at the time.

Ever since the Bill of Rights was passed in 1791 the right of the people to keep and bear arms has played a factor in the United States history. Sides have been taken and people have fought over the interpretation of the Second Amendment. Everybody has an opinion on every topic that has ever come up. While opinions can vary, there can be some common grounds for viewpoints. Commonly, the Second Amendment is looked at as a two-sided issue; (1) Citizens should be allowed to own and carry firearms and (2) Citizens should not be allowed to own and carry firearms. But in looking at a community of people who own firearms, it is evident that even in what seems to be a two sided argument has room for many different positions on one side

The United States Constitution partially betrayed many promises of the Declaration of Independence. The declaration says “all men are created equal” however it took 189 years for African American to vote. I’m not sure about you, but 189 years is not giving equality or liberty to the people. In the Constitution it states “ The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several states”. Once again this is failure to keep the promise the Declaration and Constitution made. It shows hypocrisy because you can’t say one thing and do another. When it says people in “ the several states” this implies everyone of every ethnicity, religion and gender however women and black men were excluded from

The Constitution has governed the United States for nearly 200 years. It has been the subject of controversy since its genesis. There was a need to expand powers of the central government in order to enforce and better regulate foreign affairs, conduct war and regulate currency across the states. State representatives struggled to divide power fairly between the states and the central government. The main controversy was similar to the original reason the confederation declared its independence from England. Representation.

What court will have jurisdiction over Tanya's suit? Why? The most likely court with jurisdiction over Tanya's suit will be the federal court in the state of Confusion. That is because Tanya's suit raises a federal issue, that of the regulation of interstate commerce. Generally, such a case would be filed in the federal court in the same state where the alleged harm manifested itself. However, there is also a possibility that Tanya could seek to use the concept of "long-arm" jurisdiction (Nowak & Rotunda, 2007) to have the case adjudicated in the federal court in Denial based on the fact that the illegal regulation in Confusion affected some of the residents of the state of Denial, irrespective of where the harm was caused.

Today I had the case of Dred Scott. Dred was a slave who had moved to free states with his owner, and when his owner died, he somehow managed to sue for his freedom, even though he has no right to do so because he doesn’t have American citizenship and he has no rights whatsoever. I’m told the foolishness went on for eleven years until it got to us. The ruling came very quickly to me. Of course, I immediately knew Dred was still a slave because he was property and the government has no right to take away property without due process of law. I also realized I could use this case to get rid of the Missouri Compromise. Since the government couldn’t take property and slaves were property, slavery is constitutional. Slavery is legal in every state

The plan to divide the government into three branches was proposed by James Madison, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787. He modeled the division from who he referred to as ‘the Perfect Governor,’ as he read Isaiah 33:22; “For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; He will save us.” http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

In the initial years of the United States a meeting of delegates appointed by the several states met for the sole purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation. The result of this meeting was the creation of the U.S. Constitution that would soon become the ultimate directive for both Federal and State Governments. Since its birth it has been revised, amended, and ratified in order to solidify the allocation of power between the separate branches of government. Although this may be the case, distribution of the powers has been disputed ever since the formation of the Constitution. These political, legal, and quasi-legal constitutional disputes triggered civil unrest and led to explicit acts of opposition involving nullification and

www.iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ [April 17 2001][accessed 4th November 2012] Plato.standford.edu/entries/legal-positivism/ [2003][accessed 4th November 2012] 6 Joseph Raz The Authority Of Law: Essays On Law And Morality(1979)p. 47

The controversies surrounding slavery have been established in many societies worldwide for centuries. In past generations, although slavery did exists and was tolerated, it was certainly very questionable,” ethically“. Today, the morality of such an act would not only be unimaginable, but would also be morally wrong. As things change over the course of history we seek to not only explain why things happen, but as well to understand why they do. For this reason, we will look further into how slavery has evolved throughout History in American society, as well as the impacts that it has had.