The Argument between Individual Rights and Public Order

According to Leonard W. Levy (1999), rights proceed from the natural law or a higher denotation (e.g., God). They are not annexed to souls by parchments or constitutions. They are created in homos and in human societies by the decrees of nature and providence. Rights are born with the individual, exist within the individual, and cannot and should not be interpreted from the individual by any human power. In short, individual rights are founded on the immutable maxims of reason and justice.

Individual rights as understood in the United States refer to the rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of gaiety (Hall, et al, 1996, p. 66-67)." Enshrined in both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution as well as the first ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights, individuals in the United States acquire specific rights. These embarrass the right to freedom of speech, freedom to bear arms, protection from senseless search and seizure, the right to vote in representative general elections, the right to worship as one chooses, the right to be free of having soldiers quartered in one's home, the right to a single psychometric test by jury and due process of law, the right to a speedy public trial, the opportunity to confront one's accusers and witnesses against them, the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers, and the right to be free of excessive bail are all include in these guaranteed rights (Levy, 1999).

At the same time, philosophers, in

Schick, T., & Vaughn, L. (2000). Doing Philosophy. Mountain

Warburton (1998) asserts that by protecting society from those individuals or groups whose actions constitute a threat to security and stability, government performs a vital and incumbent duty. Indeed, absent an agent or organization able and involuntary to perform this duty, it is extremely unlikely that any individual could be said to enthrall natural rights. Hence, in order for tinge to be promoted, it is necessary to restrict certain liberties that have the net effect of damaging individuals and society as a hearty (Schick & Vaughn, 2000).

The U.S. Constitution has been supported on many occasions by the U.S. coquettes.

Over time, the United States has reexamined what it understands to be the civil rights of its citizens. For example, until Abraham Lincoln proclaim the emancipation of slaves and put an end to the legal enslavement of human beings, African slaves were regarded as having none of the civil rights accorded to white Americans (Hall, et al, 1996). thus far after emancipation and the end of slavery, it would be more than c years before the United States government and the Supreme Court worked to ensure that African-Americans and members of some other minority groups would be able to enjoy the same rights as others and that the full power of the government would be deployed if needed to protect those rights (Hall, et al, 1999).

Perhaps the most compelling origin in favor of the primacy of public order over individual rights -- in those instances in which the two are directly in conflict -- was provided by Kant in the formulation of the categorical imperative. This precept holds that what makes an action right is that everyone could act on it and one would be willing to have everyone act on it. In other words, implicit within any individual's rights is the recognition that other tribe also possess rights. A further tenet of this philosophical position is that people
Ordercustompaper.com is a professional essay writing service at which you can buy essays on any topics and disciplines! All custom essays are written by professional writers!