Category Archives: Locke

If it is agreed upon by all citizens of this nation that each member therein maintains the right to life, liberty, and property, it can so too be established that there is a present practice in need of inhibition. Such a practice is that of capital punishment. Capital punishment entails the revoking of life from one who has been accused and proven guilty of a crime, the degree of which has been decided to merit death as an equitable punishment within a court of law.

As this punishment has implications extending beyond an individual person, it is necessary to recognize it as a public issue. As society agrees each citizen has the right to life, and that no other citizen has the right to revoke the life of another person, except in cases of self-defense, it is evident that capital punishment is a violation of this principle; for in the implementation of this punishment, each citizen, as represented by the jury responsible for conviction, bears the corresponding responsibility for the infliction of such a punishment. As each citizen then is held partially responsible for taking life of another citizen, just as they had administered the lethal injection themselves, they are in violation of their own principle.

Furthermore, within our Constitution, it is held that citizens of this nation shall not “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” The inherent implication within this doctrine is that there will be no unreasonable or unfair aspects of the judicial process that can constitutionally result in the revoking of one’s life, liberty, or property. In arguing that this assumption may be upheld, it is evident that capital punishment cannot be constitutionally supported. Because of the irreversibility of this punishment, a fair or due process would be just as certain in determining the guilt as death itself operates with absolute certainty. However, this is rarely the case in terms of the death sentence. In according capital punishment, any bit of uncertainty cannot be abided while still holding that the process of law through which the criminal has participated is due or just.

Lastly, in accepting the principle that no citizen of this country should be subject to “cruel or unusual punishment” it is clear that capital punishment lacks constitutional support. In considering this clause, it is first important to establish the meaning of “cruel.” As this word implies something that causes the suffering or pain of an individual, it cannot be argued that capital punishment does neither of those things. That passing from death to life is not painful, that humans are capable of making it painless, that they will insure no suffering for the recipient of this punishment is a task that cannot, has not, been accomplished. Therefore, the death penalty constitutes a punishment that is, by definition, cruel.

In accepting the responsibility of the death penalty as citizens who assent to its implementation, that due process cannot be accorded with certainty equivalent to that of the punishment itself, that the punishment cannot be outside of the term “cruel,” it is evident that capital punishment is not upheld by our constitution and must be nullified forthwith.

In June 2016, 51.9% of voters in the United Kingdom approved a referendum to leave the European Union, compared to 48.1% voting to remain. What took decades to take shape cannot simply be entirely undone overnight, so the timeline for the UK’s exit of the EU is the subject of ongoing debate. Does Prime Minister Theresa May have such authority or does the decision fall under the scope of Parliament’s role?

PM May has publicly declared her intention to notify other members of the EU that the UK’s intends to leave it. May stated this process would commence after Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is triggered which should occur before the end of March 2017. UK/EU talks over the terms of the separation will take place over the two years following this action. Taking the fight to the Supreme Court, opponents of May and those who support remaining in the European Union are among critics insisting only Parliament has the legal standing to make this decision. Leading the charge are Gina Miller, an investment manager, and Deir Dos Santos, a hairdresser. Making the case for May and the UK government is Jeremy Wright, the Attorney General.

Both sides attempt to apply the subordination of the powers of the commonwealth, or separation of powers, in support of their arguments. All powers are subordinate to the powers of the legislature in a constituted commonwealth, meaning the legislature is the only supreme power. However, it is common that the executive is a single citizen, and this individual to an extent also has supreme power as executor of the law.

The government argues that the executive is empowered to use Article 50 through royal prerogative. That the referendum passed implies the government has the consent of its citizens to carry out the process of leaving the EU. Miller and her fellow campaigners bring up that it is only the legislature that has the power to make law and that the legislation of the referendum did not cede the power of triggering Article 50 to the executive. Miller’s representatives further argue that ministers cannot change the constitution or enter into treaties that contradict it.

This case over the subordination of powers is complicated considering that the citizens consented to leaving the EU. The government is keeping with the tradition of respecting the consent of the governed by taking the results as cue to begin the process of leaving. Wright also declared that the legislation supports this and that Parliament did not seize the opportunity to limit the executive’s power over using Article 50.

As Supreme Court hearings continue, the fact that government has consent will prove to be very important. The will of the people and the referendum’s legislation support May and the government’s case. Regardless of the ruling, however, the citizens ought to rise up if the legislature or executive thwart the UK’s exit or act in opposition of the result.

Sources:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38200115

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38219928

This past September, the government of Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau approved new regulations that will permit physicians to prescribe pharmaceutical grade heroin to addicts who meet strict criteria. This move is an important step forward toward Canadians reclaiming their most important property right, the right over one’s own body. This right encompasses having maximum choice in health care and the liberty to ingest any substance at their own risk.

Under the reforms, pharmaceutical grade heroin, also known as diacetylmorphine, can legally be used in treatment programs for addicts who have not responded well to existing options. Any Canadian physician can apply for access to the drug under the new regulations. Medication assisted treatment (MAT) programs have shown promise in maximizing the well-being of addicts and allowing them to live healthier, more productive lives. More common MAT programs utilize methadone or buprenorphine, and other treatment programs withdraw patients from all opioids. Similar MAT programs using heroin exist in several European nations. The Health Canada program will be the first of its kind in North America as heroin remains a class I controlled substance in the United States.

Clinics in Vancouver, British Columbia have been at the forefront in the fight for access to medical heroin. Vancouver clinics like Crosstown and Insite have openly defied federal drug policy by having nurses administer heroin or providing a safe environment for addicts to administer street drugs. One particular clinic, Crosstown, is the only of its kind on the continent; there, addicts can see nurses who will administer heroin at no cost up to three times a day. Considering usage of these street drugs and the associated unsafe needle practices put users at risk of blood borne illnesses, programs like these on the surface promote the public good.

Opponents might argue that health professionals participating in the program are threatening the health of others. The results at Crosstown do not support this; patients are healthier than those using street drugs, and the program boasts a low drop-out rate despite being relatively demanding of patients’ schedules. Others might bring up statistics on the criminal activity of users. Program participation has been found to reduce criminal offenses, supporting that this treatment method is not a threat to the individual liberty, life, or property of others.

Expanding the use of heroin in medication assisted treatment programs shows promise in combating the opioid crisis. It is paramount that government not limit the rights of individuals to consider all options in treating their medical conditions, including drug addiction. These reforms respect the individual liberty of addicts without threatening the rights of others.

Source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/09/13/canada-has-just-approved-prescription-heroin/

When man left his pure state of nature to join society, man entered into a contract with his given government. This contract operates under the condition that life and liberty be upheld above all and that said government be consensual. When man entered this state, he did so for protection from the magistrate. This protection was not free; the social contract accepted by the citizens of a state require the citizens to give up some amount of independence in order to respect the rights of his neighbors. If this man was to not respect the social contract and acted against another citizen of the state, the state has the right to punish this man.

This transgressor has the right to be punished; he has the chance to amend his wrongs by appealing to judges of authority and reason in the commonwealth. This guarantee of judgment by the commonwealth against its transgressors is a key attribute to the success of societies, for without the promise of retribution begins the road to the most undesirable state of war.

Recently, President Obama and his Department of Justice announced they will no longer use for-profit federal prisons. These prisons are owned by corporations and ran by corporations yet paid for by the government to house government criminals. This is not right.

While the violation a criminal can commit can be abysmal, the violation of the contract he entered with the state is the more egregious offense. The state renting out its punishment duties for corporations to make a profit goes against the very reason man formed societies. In the state of nature, one transgressed upon had the right to punish the transgressor. After leaving the state of nature, the right to punish granted to the state is conditional. This power of punishment, like all other powers possessed by the commonwealth, is derived from those who are governed. When one is punished by the state, he submits to the right given to the government to uphold the state’s laws. This submission guarantees the criminal is not expelled from the social contract but retains his rights as a citizen of the state.

Thus, a prisoner of the state is still in a contract with the government. Yet, when the prisoner is not left in the care of the government but some other entity, a new contract is created. This contract, however, cannot be consensual between the prisoner and private prison because the prisoner did not have control of his life to relinquish at the point of entering the private prison: the government had it. This makes the prisoner a slave of the private prison.

I applaud President Obama for taking the steps to end this cruel practice and protecting the basic rights afforded to American citizens.

When man leaves the state of nature and joins the state of the Commonwealth he forms a contract with the magistrate to be governed by laws agreed upon in the name of life and liberty. When these societies are joined, the forfeiting of the state of nature one possesses leads to one consensual body, the society. And while not every particular action of the ruler needs total consent, for it is impossible, there must be a clear majority support of the actions of the magistrate.

Men join societies for greater protection of their property, the most important being man’s own body. The protection of property is the key reason to join a commonwealth, thus citizens of the commonwealth must act to protect their property if the government over steps with their power.

Recently, The Senate approved a bill that would require young women to enlist in the draft. The draft is the forced enlistment in the military during times of war. Not only is women being forced to enter the draft wrong, the institution of forced enlistment of any citizen of the commonwealth is an infringement on one’s life, liberty, and right to protect property.

The draft forces citizens of the United States to give up their property. When one enlists in the military during time of war, there is a chance he will lose his life. When that decision is no longer left for man to decide, the government has signed away his life for him. Your body is your property; on these grounds alone the government has broken the contract agreed upon when you left your state of nature.

Perhaps some are fine with being drafted. If that is the case, then the contract between man and the government stands unharmed because said contract is still consensual. This would be the case with WWII, when patriotism was rampant and man desired to protect the government as the government had protected him. This contract, however, has not always been agreed to. The Vietnam was also used conscription, yet the people were not supportive. As such, men used their constitutional rights to protest what they felt was an overstep in power. The US hastily pulled out of said war when the country made it clear the conscription was in no way consensual.

As citizens of the United States, you have the right to protection of your property. You have the right to liberty and to not be enslaved by the government and subjected to their arbitrary power.

American Muslims have been the target of hateful political rhetoric for many years, but that rhetoric has taken a turn towards even more hate. Donald Trump, the Republic candidate for President of the United States, has inflamed public opinion against all Muslims, even those who have been loyal and patriotic American citizens. He says he will take action against Muslims in order to create a safer America. However, religious intolerance is wrong because it infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens and it hinders the development of a healthy society.

First, Mr. Trump argues that an immigration ban on all Muslims is necessary to provide security for our country.  He has also made statements which characterize American Muslims as suspect and dangerous for our society. He appears to favor Christianity over other religions, these type of statements seem to inflame opinions against American Muslims.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/donald_trump_declares_war_on_american_muslims.html

For instance, last year, a group of American Muslims visited Austin to meet their state legislators.  They were met with hostility and hate. Some state legislators even refused to meet with them.

https://actforamericahouston.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/austin-texas-observations-on-texas-muslim-capitol-day/

The government has no business interfering with the religious beliefs of individuals. The government must be limited to protecting life, liberty and property of its members. Muslims should be subject to the same laws and penalties as members of any other religions, but they should not be discriminated against or persecuted solely because they are Muslim. Religion should not be the basis for enforcing laws.

Additionally, religion should be concerned with saving souls and not be engaged in political policy. The fact that Islam is a minority religion in our country does not mean that Muslims do not have civil rights. Everyone has the right to participate in our political process, but our government should not take the side of one religion just because it is the religion of the majority. Membership in a church is voluntary, and a church is free to decide who is a member. In contrast, every individual has certain natural rights under our Constitution. No one may be expelled or lose these natural rights. For this reason, we cannot give any one church the authority to control our government. Every individual has natural rights under our constitution.

Our government does have a duty to provide security for our country, but this responsibility does not give the government the right to discriminate against law-abiding citizens. The state also has a duty to protect life, liberty and property of all its citizens. The government must guaranty the civil rights of all, and not just the majority. Subjecting Muslim Americans to discrimination and persecution solely on the basis of their religion could eventually lead to religious violence. A government which promotes violence instead of peace is not capable of protecting life, liberty and property.

Also, our country should embrace diversity and toleration. Every individual must be given the opportunity to participate in our society. Wars and violence are the result of intolerance and the need of those in power to impose their will on others. The radical Muslims who are waging war on our country demonstrate the dangers of intolerance. Although we must protect our country, we should not adopt the type of intolerance shown by enemies. We should not destroy our own values for peace and civil liberties by unjustly discriminating a minority religion.

In conclusion, churches should be teaching tolerance and not intolerance. If all individuals accepted toleration, then much of the violence and misery in our world could be eliminated. This, the calls of some in our country to discriminate against Muslims are wrong.

On August 26th, 2016, I was scrolling blank-minded through Twitter on my iPhone when a tweet caught my eye. I scrolled past it initially, but back tracked when I recognized the word “Chicago” in a tweet authored by ex-Miami Heat star Dwayne Wade. Was D-Wade hyped to replace real-life Mr. Glass, Derrick Rose, starting for the Chicago Bulls this season? I had to know his opinion on how good my favorite basketball team was finally going to be. Alas, no. However, as I read the tweet I got equally, if not more passionate, as I would have for the latter situation. The tweet said this: “My cousin was killed today in Chicago. Another act of senseless gun-violence. 4 kids lost their mom for NO REASON.” As it turns out, Nykea Aldridge was walking her baby in a stroller when she got caught in some crossfire. She was not the intended victim. Two brothers were arrested for her murder, and confessed to attempting to murder a rival gang member. Turns out (this is not even a surprise to me, and I grew up in the 1600s) the homicide rate in Chicago is high, and has been for a long time. 511 is the total homicide count so far this year, according to the Chicago Tribune, already 20 more than the total number of homicides in 2015, and it’s only September. The murder rate may have peaked at 943 in 1992, but the overall gun violence and general crime rates in Chicago have been on the rise in recent years, and this year happens to be the highest since 1992, after a long trend upwards starting, suspiciously, in 2011, when Rahm Emanuel took office.

I’m not here today to talk about guns laws in Illinois or how bad of a mayor Rahm Emaneul is (wait, yes I am), though both of those things I would qualify as deserving of public discourse. I want to propose that the historically high crime rate in Chicago is violating the citizens of Chicago’s natural right to life, liberty, and even property in a more roundabout way. A typical citizen of Chicago may not have to worry about their safety on a regular day-to-day basis, that is if they stick to safer neighborhoods and certain more well lit parks after dark. One would assume the Dwayne Wade, who grew up in the Chi before abandoning all of Illinois for Miami, would have a cousin who would qualify as a typical citizen of Chicago. The fact that Nykea Aldridge’s murder was motivated by a gang rivalry which she had nothing to do with qualifies this as a problem which effects the entire general public of Chicago, thus effecting their right not only to life, but also the liberty to just take your newborn child on a stroll with you, or whatever you happen to want to do on the public streets of Chicago. This problem also effects people’s liberty to live wherever they want. Chicago is a city of neighborhoods, each with their own unique identity, culture, and demographics. Generally people live in the neighborhood most suited to their background because of the enjoyment which comes from having a close-knit community inside a city of millions. This is a liberty which I consider everyone as being born with: to live where they choose. As well, certain neighborhoods tend to have less expensive property than others, however those neighborhoods also tend to have much higher crime rates. In fact, it’s directly related. If people cannot feel safe living where they must live then this also infringes on a person’s right to liberty.

Murder is already illegal, though. So what would the solution to this problem be? Normally I would say that naturally murder is a crime which would be punished by the government which it happens under and then the public would in tern be deterred from doing that crime. It seems though, in the case of Chicago, either the government is not doing an adequate job of punishing this crime and thus deterring the public from it, and thus the punishment for certain crimes in Chicago should be raised in severity, or the government is not taking enough preliminary steps to stop the crime in the first place. Policy already exists on both ends of this. Either way, however, the problem is that the government is not trying hard enough to enforce policy already in place to protect its people and I suggest that government (I’m talkin @ you Rahm) has become tyrannical and thus deserves to be reset through revolution.

http://crime.chicagotribune.com/chicago/homicides

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/28/us/chicago-dwyane-wade-cousin-nykea-aldridge-killed/