Capital punishment argument
Capital punishment argument
Order Instructions:
These questions need to be answered for the paper please.
1- Statement of the issue – one or two sentences.
2- Review of the authors arguments – one or two paragraphs stating at least three major points made by each author.
3- Comparison of arguments – at least one paragraph contrasting what each author had to say.
4 – Your opinion – at least one paragraph explaining either
a) why you agree with one of another, or
b)why you disagree with all the authors.
5- Discussion Question – an open ended question that you derive from the readings.
This is the textbook name just in case you need to know or if you want to quote anything. “The Enduring Debate (Norton, 2014)
SAMPLE ANSWER
Statement of the Issue
Constitution interpretation is done in the old fashioned way as evident where the court came to a controversial decision in the Roper Case, proving to be the statement of the issue (Canon, Colenman & Mayer, 2014). This case happened on the ground where one person is defending the opinion on the ground that people ought not to be subjected to greater punishment like; capital punishment.
Authors Arguments
Antonin Scalia doesn’t think that the Constitution should be interpreted in a strict manner or either sloppily. It should be interpreted in a more reasonable manner. Many of the interpreters do not deserve the description strickt and he believes that the text is given the meaning it had if it is well adopted in the right manner. In the modern position, this happens to be opposite as questions are asked as though it is some affliction that seizes people (Canon, Colenman & Mayer, 2014). According to the author, when a constitution changes, it doesn’t need to be given an expansive meaning, rather it is given whatever meaning is needed so as to make it simpler to be changed when future necessities arise. John Marshall explained that we have to know that it is the constitution we are expounding, thus, it has to be given an expansive meaning. The reason behind all this is to help accommodate events that a person is familiar with and which will happen in the future.
Comparison of Authors Arguments
Antonin Scalia talked about how the constitution is a big difference that one could not lie about it. There is no need for a lawyer to make a person understand it (Canon, Colenman & Mayer, 2014). The constitution is a living morph and a person can’t contrast it that first. John Marshall talks of ways that the constitutions use to guarantee the right to represent by counsel and this did not mean that the state had all the mandate of paying for the counsel as the Antonin Scalia stated. John Marshall stated that the constitution has a process named the due process and it mostly states that no person can be deprived off his life only where then law is involved in the whole process. However, Antonin Scalia contradicts this statement by saying that a person can lose everything in the court as his life, liberty and property are not guaranteed in any way.
Own Opinion
It is prudent to agree with the first author as he wanted the constitution to be interpreted in a more reasonable manner. Increased sentences in the court as mentioned by John Marshall meant that it didn’t have all the many trials, and this act violated the right to trial by jury (Canon, Colenman & Mayer, 2014). A person will definitely disagree with Black’s opinion that stated that the lesser are, better off than we are. On the other side, Burton argued that designed to court and the districts courts are designed to work as the school board and have the capacity to formulate the program for desegregation. It is right to disagree with the political scientist named Robert Dahl, who viewed the court as a powerless tool that can affect the course of national policy.
Discussion
It is next to impossible to beat somebody with nobody. Such a phrase is categorized as the principle of legal interpretation, which require to be well considered. Increased emphasis which tends to be upon included the people’s rights and any active powers are highly valued. In most cases, increased emphasis leads to a better constitutional law that helps in the promotion of governmental solutions. The solutions are consistent with individual dignity and all community needs.
References
Canon, D., Colenman, J., & Mayer, Kenneth. (2014). “The Enduring Debate. Retrieved from http://books.wwnorton.com/books/webad.aspx?id=4294975553 on 8th February 2016
We can write this or a similar paper for you! Simply fill the order form!
