Where Liberty Meets Justice Essay

One of the most important parts of the Declaration of Independence is its preamble, and, more specifically, certain phrases contained within the preamble. Thomas Jefferson does an excellent job of explaining why the colonies are doing the things they are doing, and is very clear in stating what he and his associates think are the “unalienable rights” of the American people. Among these are “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Probably one of the most famous lines in American history, I have chosen to focus on this phrase and what those three things might have meant to Thomas Jefferson and the other Founding Fathers as they prepared this document, as well as what they mean to us today.

America today is permeated with natural law. Our founders were subscribers to natural law and believed that man’s inner morality can lead to sustaining a civil society. The forefathers of America were from different denominations that ranged from Presbyterian to Catholism. Some were even Deists. Even though their denominations varied, they all united under the idea that their Creator was the source of their reason (Levin 2009, 26). The result of these beliefs produced a religious liberty throughout the country. That liberty still stands today. Natural law, contrary to the thoughts of its non-supporters, does not make a country into a theocracy. Since God’s laws are universal, the creed of a person does not change the fact that they entitled to their God-given rights. The founders were extremely foresighted because they acknowledged that liberty is inseparable from religious liberty (Levin 2009, 29). Another example of how natural law is in America’s founding is the right for citizens to disobey man-made laws that tyrannical in nature. All laws that are not given by the consent of the governed have the potential to be overthrown. America’s Declaration of Independence even says that the people should go as far as overthrowing the government if it becomes too powerful (Levin

In his book, Unlearning Liberty (2014) Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) asserts that violations of free speech— whether by students, faculty, or administration—will have devastating effects in greater society. Lukianoff supports his assertion by describing cases he has seen throughout his career at FIRE. From administration punishing students to professors getting fired for clearly protected speech. Lukianoff’s purpose is to point out the misguided lessons about freedom that are being taught on campus and to encourage his audience to stand up for freedom on campus. Lukianoff writes in an earnest tone to an audience who recognizes the importance of freedom in America society.

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Thomas Jefferson wrote those words to express the emotions of a nation that desired freedom, and to shake the foundation of the British Empire. However, this simple, but eloquent phrase has sparked one of the greatest debates in American history. Is America a Christian nation? One question has divided the nation and its politicians since the founding and forming of America. This fiery debate has sparked more controversy than any other debate in modern politics.

"If the fires of freedom and civil liberties burn low in other lands, they must be made brighter in our own. If in other lands the press and books and literature of all kinds are censored, we must redouble our efforts here to keep them free. If in other lands the eternal truths of the past are threatened by intolerance, we must provide a safe place for their perpetuation." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, 1938 (Isaacs 66)

Civil Liberties and Civil Rights are two terms that are often used interchangeably in America. Since the founding of our nation there has always been the debate of the limit of government and what rights were guaranteed to each individual. Many of the architects of our government feared that national government could one day become too powerful and begin to infringe on the individual rights of the citizens. As a result, a Bill of Rights was added to our constitution. The Bill of Rights serves as a guide of what the government cannot do. Civil Liberties simply establish precedent on what rights the United States government cannot abridge on. Civil Rights, on the other hand applies to the rights of individuals. Over the history of our nation the question of civil rights has found itself becoming a pillar of our legal system and has been very instrumental in our quest to become a “more perfect union”. In recent history one civil liberty that has caused a continual controversial debate is the second amendment, in addition to how it applies to gun control measures that are being proposed in order to decrease the level of mass shootings. The second amendment clearly defines the intention of individuals to have the right to bear arms. In order to understand why gun control advocates have failed to secure effective gun control legislation, we must explore the reasoning why the second amendment is interpreted the way it is and should Americans be allowed to own guns?

Since the Declaration of Independence was drafted founding itself on individual privileges and choice, happiness and democracy, a multitude of concerns have kindled the rights disputes that we see making law an active and continually growing and interesting area of interest today. Issues arose included women suffrage, civil equality, slavery, the ability to hold a religious forum, along with many others. And, though the context and times have significantly changed with these concerns there still remains a constant struggle between state, religion, and schools. Prayer in public schools is still a topic of conversation. The giving of religious gifts to administrators and the funding of schools through tax-payer monies are

In the world we live in today, we have many similarities to the ancient world and other past societies. Many things have changed and many things have not changed. Somethings that have not changed that the author Thomas Massaro writes about in his novel Living Justice is what we as people discuss in private verse what we talk about in public. As children, we are taught to discuss only things that are “free” for others to hear like a sports game last night, or of a movie we recently saw. We are taught to speak in private about medical affairs, politics, and religion. The focus will be about the moral and ethical dilemma of voicing ones religious faith in the public square.

America is commonly called the “Land of the Free”, but the abundance of liberties, and liberties for all, has not always been the case. The Puritans were some of the first to settle in the New World, but they were self-interested and did not come with the purpose of creating a free state for all. As time progressed, so did their believes, and by the time Tocqueville arrived from France, liberty was an important aspect of American life. So important that people would fight and die for it. Tocqueville, while impressed at the amount liberty and freedoms that citizens had, believed that America had a long way to go before it could call itself a truly free country. Fast forward over a hundred years later, and John Rawls lived in a time were the

America is the universal symbol of freedom. But is it really free? Does the history of the United States stay true to the ideas of our forefathers? Or has the definition been altered to fit American policies? Has freedom defined America? Or has America defined freedom? I believe America was at first defined by freedom, then after time, America defined freedom, altering the definition to fit the niche it fits in, but still keeping key components so it still seems to be staying true to the ideas of America’s founding fathers.

The subject matter of the “Republic” is the nature of justice and its relation to human existence. Book I of the “republic” contains a critical examination of the nature and virtue of justice. Socrates engages in a dialectic with Thrasymachus, Polemarchus, and Cephalus, a method which leads to the asking and answering of questions which directs to a logical refutation and thus leading to a convincing argument of the true nature of justice. And that is the main function of Book I, to clear the ground of mistaken or inadequate accounts of justice in order to make room for the new theory. Socrates attempts to show that certain beliefs and attitudes of justice and its nature are inadequate or inconsistent, and present a way in which those

Life… Liberty… and the pursuit of happiness. The 3 things that we, as Americans all share, and that itself, cannot be taken away from us, unalienable rights, as you would put it. But, what are these things, and what do they mean. Today, I will go in depth of what they actually are.

From the beginning, the United States Constitution has guaranteed the American people civil liberties. These liberties have given citizens rights to speak, believe, and act freely. The Constitution grants citizens the courage to express their mind about something they believe is immoral or unjust. The question is, how far are citizens willing to extend the meanings of these liberties? Some people believe that American citizens take advantage of their civil liberties, harming those around them. On the contrary, many other people feel that civil liberties are necessary tools to fight for their Constitutional rights.

In the movie, The Freedom Writers Mrs. Erin Gruwell (Hillary Swank) plays a role of a dedicated teacher who did all she could, to help her students learn to respect themselves and each other. She has little idea of what she's getting into when she volunteers to be an English teacher at a newly integrated high school in Long Beach, California. Her students were divided along racial lines and had few aspirations beyond basic survival. Mrs. Gruwell was faced with a big challenge when a group of freshmen students showed her nothing but disrespect which made it hard for her to communicate, teach and understand them. However, Erin Gruwell was determined that no matter the cost she would teach her students not only

Negative and positive liberty are best understood as distinct values within Berlin’s own scheme of value pluralism. While an increase in either is desirable, ceteris paribus, attempting to maximize any single idea of liberty without regard to any other values necessarily entails absurd and clearly undesirable conclusions; any sensible idea of jointly maximizing freedom in general, therefore, must acknowledge the tradeoffs inherent in increasing one aspect of freedom or another. The tension here is akin to the familiar tradeoff between equity and efficiency concerns in economics; negative and positive freedom are not diametrically opposed, but the two ideals may not be individually maximized at the same time.