Posted on by Ismet centeno # 2

Should the law be always obeyed? – MLK’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”

According to MLK, how can we tell the difference between just and unjust laws?  

According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, just laws and unjust laws are different based on whether they match moral law and if they honor human dignity. He says a just law uplifts human personality indeed. A just law, he says, is one that uplifts human personality and is rooted in eternal and natural law. It is a code by which a minority is compelled to be followed by a majority, and the majority is also willing to follow it. An unjust law, by contrast, degrades human personality as it is out of harmony with moral law and a majority often imposes it on a minority without self-binding. 

Why the Distinction Matters 

Yes, this distinction does matter a lot. If we accept all laws as equally valid regardless of their moral basis, we risk legitimizing oppression. Comprehension of that difference can permit people as well as societies to judge some of the laws. They are able to evaluate whether it is that they should give support to them, pose a challenge to them, or even disobey these same laws. Unfair systems from a moral angle can cause laws that are unjust. Injustices including discrimination, slavery, also segregation have occurred in the past. Recognizing unjust laws empowers people because they practice civil disobedience, a key tactic for social change movements. This distinction also directly influences politics. If politicians and citizens accept unjust laws as legitimate, they maintain harmful power structures. But if they challenge unjust laws, they can push policies toward fairness and equity. Dr. King’s framework encourages both critical thinking and moral responsibility in political life.

Example of a Just Law (Today): The Voting Rights Act of 1965  
Why it’s just.

This law is designed to eliminate discrimination based on race when voting. It uplifts human dignity through ensuring equal participation within democracy. This aligns with the moral principle as well that all people deserve a voice also and are equal still. It aimed toward protecting minorities and was binding against all from the majority’s tyranny. 

Unjust Law Example: Felon Disenfranchisement Laws (in many U.S. states) 

Why its unjust 
Many states bar convicted felons from voting after their prison terms end. These laws do disproportionately affect Black and Latino communities, and which continues the racial inequality. In their legacy Jim Crow and mass incarceration rooted this inequality. Individuals are stripped by them of dignity along with political voice, even after reintegration into society after their time served. 

MLK: “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself.” 
Felon disenfranchisement fits this: it’s unequally applied and denies basic democratic participation, which degrades human personality. 

These examples are powerful because of how they can show how law either liberates or oppresses. Just laws should be obeyed under a moral obligation Dr. King argued also unjust ones disobeyed under moral responsibility. This difference is important for comprehension not only in history. It also can matter in how it is that we vote or protest and do push for some change today.

Posted on by Ismet centeno # 2 · 1 Comment

The court system

  1. In what ways is the court system better suited to protect the individual, than are the elected branches of government (such as Congress and the President; or the Mayor of NYC and the NYC City Assembly)? Give an example to illustrate your argument. 

The court system is often better at protecting people because it is not influenced by popular opinion or political convenience. Because elected people like the President or Congress often value what voters think, sometimes they disregard election-losing issues or minority rights. 

A good example includes the 2015 case of Obergefell v. Hodges. Then the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage across the country at that time. Back then, a lot of states banned it still. Most of the politicians did not want to deal with that issue. Since those bans went against the 14th Amendment, the Court stepped in, as well as said they were unconstitutional. Even though that decision lacked political popularity then LGBTQ+ rights won big. 

2. Think about how federal judges get to become judges – unlike Presidents, Mayors and members of Congress (and other legislatures), they are not elected, but rather appointed. Many Americans have thus called the federal courts system, and especially the Supreme Court, anti-democratic PLACES IN OUR GOVERNMENT. Do you agree that the Supreme Court, for example, is an anti-democratic part of our government? What could be the reason for this way of choosing judges in federal courts? (HINT: think about our discussion of “Federalist #10”, and which social class plays a leading role in our government system.) 

Yeah, in some way, the Supreme Court seems to be somewhat anti-democratic or at the very least, how democracy is normally conceived. Like with Presidents, Senators, or Mayors, the justices aren’t elected by all the people. Rather, the President picks them then the Senate confirms. Once they are appointed, these justices are able to stay for life. Therefore, regular voters don’t have a say. The Court’s members lack power to decide them. 

 That’s actually deliberate though. It goes directly back to its founding. The idea is based within the country. In Federalist #10, James Madison talked about how it is that sometimes the majority can decide in a way that hurts the minority when they vote for something that sounds good to most people but takes away rights from others. So that they can focus on fair decisions and protecting the Constitution even if unpopular, the courts should be separate from all that. 

 Judges who are elite class people also tend to be from more educated or wealthier backgrounds. That system has worked that way showing that founders wanted judges focused on reason and law more than on politics or public pressure. The courts aren’t super democratic so that is the point they are there for protecting rights, rather than winning popularity contests. 

Posted on by Ismet centeno # 2

 “CIVIL LIBERTIES AND BASIC FREEDOMS, BILL OF RIGHTS (FIRST THROUGH FOURTH AMENDMENT)”

  1. Describe how you understand the “Establishment Clause” and the related “Lemon Test”.  

The Establishment Clause is a part of the First Amendment that says that the government cannot promote or support any type of religion. It means, basically, no playing favorites when it comes to faith and also no official religion. 

Now the Lemon Test is just a way the courts check if a law crosses the line. From a case that originated in 1971. Lemon v. Kurtzman was the case’s name.  There are three rules: 

  •  The law must have a non-religious purpose. 
  • It can’t help religion. It cannot hurt it, either. 
  • The government is not able to get so mixed up in religious stuff now. 

A law usually is considered unconstitutional in the event that it fails in even just one of those.  

  1. Is burning the US flag protected by the First Amendment? Explain by referring to the relevant court case discussed in the reading. 

Yep, burning the flag is legal, whether you believe it or not. even if it’s super controversial, it is free speech. This statement came from the Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson (1989). A guy burned the flag to protest the government as the Court basically said, “Hey, you don’t have to like it, but it’s protected under free speech.” It is allowed as long as it’s just a protest, not something like arson. 

  1. What does it mean when someone says, “I’m taking the Fifth”? 

When someone says “I’m taking the Fifth,” they use their privilege if they refuse to answer a question that could incriminate them. It is from the source of the Fifth Amendment. It does protect you from any self-incrimination. So basically, they’re saying, “I’m not answering that because it could get me in trouble,” also you’ll hear it a lot in court shows or upon someone being questioned by the police. 

Posted on by Ismet centeno # 2 · 1 Comment

 THE BILL OF RIGHTS DURING WARTIME: THE PATRIOT ACT

  1. P. Williams writes in her essay that the war on terror is a new type of war. What’s new about it, how is it different from traditional wars? 

P. Williams says the war on terror is totally different from traditional wars. This isn’t like World War II or some conflict where countries clash using tanks plus soldiers. Instead, this is more like fighting an invisible enemy terrorist who could be just about anywhere as well as who do not wear uniforms or belong to any country. 

The war on terror is against terrorism or against an idea (like terrorism), not a country. The enemies aren’t always in uniforms, and the “battlefield” could be anywhere, even inside the U.S. Preventing attacks is more important than fighting a military. That can make everything more complicated. 

  1. In what ways does the “Roving Wiretaps” of the Patriot Act seem to violate the Bill of Rights? Which amendment(s) does it seem to violate, and why? 

So, roving wiretaps are kind of like a permission slip for government spying upon you wherever you go, because they don’t have to name the exact phone or device they tap. That’s a problem since the Fourth Amendment says that the government has to specify their search as well as reasons for their actions. 

Roving wiretaps lets them follow someone’s calls, texts, or emails everywhere. Even if it’s not clear that they are the right people. This means Innocent people could get caught up in spying, which is a shady situation. That surely seems like a violation of your right to not know they search your stuff or listen to your conversations. The Fourth Amendment is intended so as to protect that right. 

  1. What about “Sneek and Peek” Warrants? 

The “Sneak and peek” warrants allow the government to snoop around your stuff without any previous notice. They can go into your house for a look through your things. They might not leave any kind of note at all until weeks or even months after. 

That scares me and many people. The Fourth Amendment must guard us from that type of covert search. A heads-up is just what you would normally expect in the event of being searched. You might not even know it happened, through sneak peeks.