Which of the following expanded americans conceptions of personal liberty
- Which of the following expanded americans conceptions of personal liberty
- Age of jackson: crash course us history #14
- America in world war i: crash course us history #30
- Law for non-lawyers – due process and equal protection
- Law for non-lawyers: precedent
- The rise of conservatism: crash course us history #41
Age of jackson: crash course us history #14
Government is regulated by civil liberties and civil rights protections, which define areas of operation (such as expression or religious worship) where the government’s power to intervene is restricted. While these constitutional protections to people seem to be straightforward in the abstract, when applied to individual situations, they create vexing problems and controversies. While all branches of national government are responsible for safeguarding citizens’ civil liberties, the United States Supreme Court controls a significant portion of the civil rights and civil liberties policy and decision-making in the United States.
America in world war i: crash course us history #30
Civil rights, on the other hand, ensure that government officials treat citizens fairly and make decisions based on merit rather than ethnicity, gender, or other personal characteristics. Because of the constitutional guarantee of civil rights, it is illegal for a state-run school or university to treat students differently based on their color, ethnicity, age, sex, or national origin. Many states had segregated schools in the 1960s and 1970s where only students of a certain race or gender were permitted to attend. However, the courts found that these regulations infringed on the constitutional rights of students who were unable to participate as a result of the laws. 1st
Law for non-lawyers – due process and equal protection
Despite the fact that freedom is perhaps the most fundamental animating value of the American political order, American statesmen and political theorists have done little better than philosophers in coming to a common understanding of the concept.
Law for non-lawyers: precedent
8 Every political edifice is based on a basic, often ill-defined idea of liberty, but liberty has meant radically different things in various political systems. 9 The Framers certainly had differing perspectives on the essence of liberty,10 but these more subtle differences were overshadowed by their more visible disputes about the constitutional form of government. 11 Particularly though these foundations are clouded by questions of institutional structure, our principles of democratic liberty have always been based on more foundational metaphysical intuitions.
By considering the philosophical roots of our modern principles of liberty and tracing the emanations of these ideas [*PG504]through constitutional history, the object of this Article is to bridge the gap between the worlds of philosophers and political thinkers or constitutional lawyers. It must be acknowledged right away that the project is intellectually risky. Not only does a philosopher’s interest in ultimate definitions differ greatly from a constitutional lawyer’s goal of establishing the necessary institutional conditions of liberty in the political system, but there is also a major difference in how philosophers and lawyers use the same terms. 12 Indeed, philosophers and lawyers often tend to be from different worlds.
The rise of conservatism: crash course us history #41
From Plato’s Socratic dialogues to Epictetus and Marcus Aurelius’ Stoic philosophy, to the strictures of the Law in the Hebrew Bible and St. Paul’s Christian teachings, to Immanuel Kant’s moral philosophy, and dozens of others, not to mention all the world’s great religions, a strikingly similar theme emerges again and again: that the freedom to indulge one’s passions is essential. In the words of 1 Corinthians 7:22, Paul captured this perspective in a characteristically arresting way: “For the one who was a slave when called to faith in the Lord is the Lord’s freed person; similarly, the one who was free when called is Christ’s slave.”
So, how does one make sense of these various interpretations of liberty and the relations that exist between them? In a fine essay published in 1958, political theorist Isaiah Berlin distinguished between two different conceptions of liberty: first, classical liberalism’s “negative” liberty, which focuses on the principle of freedom “from” external compulsion; and second, a more complex “positive” liberty, which seeks the elevation of the individual and the discovery (or recovery) of the “happiness.” Berlin recognized that all modes of liberty have advantages and disadvantages. Negative liberty, for example, is unsatisfying since it is either mute or ambiguous on the issue of the proper ends of human life.