Posted on by Veronica Gonzalez

Veronica Gonzalez – Just and Unjust Laws – MLK

Veronica Gonzalez

POL 100 (0504) – Intro. to American Govt. – Fall 2022

Discussion Board 13.1

QA1. According to Martin Luther King, we can tell the difference between a just and unjust law by the morality that can be put into question with regards to the law. An unjust law is a law that is not morally positive to society. A just law is a man-made law that is morally positive to society and in agreement with the law of God. The difference between the prior and the latter is determined by the morals, good or bad, it is rooted in. An unjust law is unjust because it seeks to degrade a human being while a just law seeks to uplift a human being.  

QA2. From my perspective, this distinction between a just and unjust law makes a difference in how people and society live their lives. Recognizing and standing against unjust laws and their detrimental effects helps individuals recognize that all human beings have value. Justice is also in some way connected to having good morals. If we don’t have or promote good morals, dare it be said, Godly morals, then the politics in our nation becomes distorted. Moral distortion values the things that are wrong i.e., racism, segregation, discrimination and allows for the creation and enforcement of these types of laws that support these behaviors and makes them acceptable. Yes, our nation is affected and impacted negatively when Godly morals don’t exist or are not valued.  
QA3. In my opinion, “Stop & Frisk” is an example of an unjust law. Although its initial intention was to protect society from criminals, its misuse led to racial profiling. “Stop & Frisk” was used statistically specifically on the Latino and Black population more than on the white population and came to violate the 4th Amendment rights, (free from unreasonable search & seizure), of people. Priority parking for disabled individuals is an example of a just law because it takes into consideration a population that has special needs and that regardless of their special needs, the government cares enough to encourage them to meet their activities of daily living.

Posted on by Imariabe Ekhator · 1 Comment

MLK LETTER.

1. According to MLK,  an unjust law degrades the human personality, while a just law, uplifts the human personality.

2. I think this is an important distinction, and it makes a difference in the way someone lives their lives. When laws are passed, there’s always punishment for those who violate the laws. Let’s say an unjust law is passed, like the Fugitive Slave Act of 1793, which imposed punishment on aide on aided/harbored escaped slaves, people are less willing to help escaped slaves even if they wanted because they don’t want to face those penalties. This is a difference in how people lived their lives in that period. I also think it can affect our politics. For example, the passing of the Enabling Act which laid the foundation for the complete Nazification of the German society, and the cornerstone of Hitler’s dictatorship is an example of how unjust law can affect politics.

3. An example of a just law in our society today are state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. This allows everyone to be who they really want to be and be with whoever they choose. These people can express their self, and feelings just like everyone without being discriminated. This is just because according to MLK, laws like this uplift’s human personality.

An example of an unjust law in our society today is sending people to jail for being unable to pay a parking ticket. In the US today, if you get a ticket for a parking violation, and fail to pay, these fines pile up, and you can be arrested and spend time in jail. Not everyone has the ability has the ability or money to pay up all these fines and sending them to jail for just a parking ticket, is like punishing them for being poor. This is unjust because according to MLK, this degrades the human personality.

Posted on by Ashanti Ribot · 1 Comment

db 13

  1. According to MLK, how can we tell the difference between just and unjust laws?  Understanding this questions is the most important part of this module, and I will ask it again during our second exam.

Just laws treat every person the same regardless of positions, status or wealth. While on the other hand unjust is done against the perfect rights of another that is opposed to law which is a test of right and wrong. Someone who doesn’t play by the rules.

  1. In your view, is this an important distinction (between just and unjust laws), do you think it makes a difference in the way someone (as an individual, or our society as a whole) lives their lives? Can it affect our politics?

Yes I do feel as if it is an important distinction between just and unjust laws. I always feel as if in society we all hold up walls because we fear how laws like just and unjust may affect us. It affects our politics a lot because it is very well aware how the system favors the more high class, those with money. There’s many more opportunities and just laws in general where one may say those who are less fortunate can’t really interfere. 

3.

Based on our discussion of Question 1, give an example each, of an unjust and just law, in the US today. Explain what makes it unjust or just (using MLK’s definition of those two types of laws).

An unjust law would be money bail. When it comes to the less fortunate who end up being incarcerated, bail seems to always be sky high. To the point where the amount is ridiculously high and the judge knows they will not be able to pay it off. There’s cases where the defendant’s family is broke and they are only living off government funds while bail is being set up to 25,000 dollars. With that being said, that person will have to stay in jail basically because they are poor. On the other hand , those who are rich do the crime and they know they will not do the time because they can afford their “ get out of jail free card”. Since they can afford it they’ll see them as doing a crime again as not a problem. 

Posted on by EVANGELINA ROCHA

DB 13.1

1.According to MLK, how can we tell the difference between just and unjust laws? Understanding this questions is the most important part of this module, and I will ask it again during our second exam.

there will BE a difference between just and unjust laws when such laws deprives some individuals and on the other hands it benefits the other. 

2.In your view, is this an important distinction (between just and unjust laws), do you think it makes a difference in the way someone (as an individual, or our society as a whole) lives their lives? Can it affect our politics?.

Yes. The distinction between unjust and just laws is very important not only within our society but also as an individual living his/her day to day life. As an individual and within our society, it affects us because we cannot tell for sure if whos side does our justice system favors. Is the rich or the poor, is it based on the color of the skin or is it based on his/her race or nationality. It makes us feel uneasy, confused and unsafe.On the other hand, it also affects our political system because most of the time our laws favor the rich and less for the poor which is very opposite to the saying that “those who less in life must have more on laws’.

3.Based on our discussion of Question 1, give an example each, of an unjust and just law, in the US today. Explain what makes it unjust or just (using MLK’s definition of those two types of laws).

. In example of just laws would be the taxing system, while the poor is taxed less, the rich is taxed more but in most times it can be circumvented and the rich their taxes at a low cost.In the same example a tax law becomes unjust when it charges more than it should or a specific individual who is engaged in a particular business is taxed solely for that business venture and not the other individuals engaged in the same business.

Posted on by Madeline Flores

Discussion Board 12.1

  1. The Supreme Court decided in the Wal- Mart v. Dukes case that the 1.5 million female workers in Walmart could classify as a class action lawsuit because not all the 1.5 million female workers were “sex – discriminated”, denied equal paychecks, and denied a pay raise. In reading 12.2 it states, “Because the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.”Without some glue holding the alleged reasons for all those decisions together,” Scalia said, “it will be impossible to say that examination of all the class members’ claims for relief will produce a common answer to the crucial question, Why was I disfavored.” (Tortorici 6)This example shows how the case takes a turn and does not have enough evidence to go forward because not all the women went through the same as Dukes. Another example in reading 12.1 states, “Bringing these numbers to life, Dukes offered damning anecdotes from the plaintiffs: women who were told by their managers to “blow the cobwebs off their makeup and doll up” if they ever wanted to advance in the company; or reminded that “God made Adam first, so women will always be second to men”; or asked if they wouldn’t rather be at home, raising their kids, than seeking out promotions—all while their male colleagues’ fatter paychecks were justified by the assertion that men were “breadwinners.” (Tortorici 2) This example shows how sexism is shown in the way they speak to women if they ask for a raise or promotion, and how easily they give their jobs to men when the majority of women stay for decades in their positions meanwhile men get promoted in the blink of an eye. The supreme court ruling didn’t favor Duke’s side and favored Walmart’s side because Duke may have been sex-discriminated and turned down to get an equal pay raise, other women didn’t go through the same situation so she couldn’t advocate for all 1.5 million female workers without sufficient evidence.
Posted on by Kareem Davis

Kareem Davis: Discussion 12.1

  1. In the case of Betty Dukes v. Walmart Stores Inc, the Supreme Court decided in favor of Walmart based on two legal concerns that the Court had to consider. The first concern was mainly ruled on procedural grounds, as the class action’s multiple demands placed their class into two different class distinctions, which in turn jeopardized its total standing as a class entirely. Since it was very cut and dry, the Supreme Court ruled on this unanimously. The second concern was more nuanced. In a 5-4 ruling the court made the determination that the class action did not meet the commonality requirement, which means that there has to be “questions of law and fact” that the entire group being represented in the class share. In this case, the Supreme Court determined that the class had to share common problems and solutions to the problems. Because the class was so large in size and each individual in the class had varying/different levels of wrongdoing, the majority of the Court stated no solution could be legitimately be ruled on the plaintiffs at the same time.
Posted on by safa · 1 Comment

safa Alghaithi

It is so crazy how a country as big as American with so much history in sexism and racism decided not to move Forward with it because i’s was a 5-4 when women Decided to take action it was a fail men are gonna be paid more

Posted on by Helena Castro

Discussion Board 12.1

What did the Supreme Court decide in the Wal-Mart case? And more importantly, how did it justify its decision? (HINT: the key word here is “commonality” (and how it related to “class-action lawsuit”). Try to understand what this legal terms means, as it is key to the court’s decision).

The Supreme Court made the decision in the Wal-Mart Case that there was not enough evidence to conduct a class. With this, Dukes had a stake in both legal and social matters that went beyond the women’s claims and Wal-Mart’s employment practices. The court had ruled that the women’s additional demand for back pay could only belong in a b(3) claim, which would be consumer class actions. Unfortunately, this only caused the women’s class status to start back where they were. The Supreme Court also ruled that the class represented, failed to meet Rule 23’s commonality requirement, that there be “questions of law or fact” common to the class. Due to this Supreme Court decision, the 1.5 million female Wal-Mart employees were not all denied the same promotion, the same pay raise, or insulted, belittled, or obstructed by the same manager in the same store, their cases could not legitimately be litigated all at once.

Posted on by Denise Parada

Discussion Board 12.1- Denise Parada

The supreme court decided that the 1.5 million female Walmart workers could be classified as a class action lawsuit because not all the women were treated the same or denied pay raise in all the Walmart locations. There was not enough evidence to or enough common evidence to build a case into a class action lawsuit in order for those women to receive monetary compensation.

Commonality is a legal term used for a certain outcome or event that each person has in common. something that binds the story together that everyone experienced.

Posted on by Pamela

Pamela Pereira

The Supreme Court decided to set limitations to the case. According to Justice Antonin Scalia of the court, the Dukes’ case cannot be considered as a “class action” as the respondents cannot produce enough evidence to prove otherwise. Based on the narrative of the case, not all women employed by Wal-Mart had experienced the same level of discrimination from the company. Scalia furthered that in order for the Dukes to make a claim under class action of rule 23, there should be one problem identified collectively among the class members and a common solution to it. 

In view thereof, there is an obvious question that the Supreme Court has to look into, and that is if the case itself satisfied the requirement of “commonality” in reference to Rule 23 of Civil Procedure. The respondents failed to give proofs to support this claim.