Citizenship, with its attendant rights and duties has been an ever constant in human society since the earliest ideas of democracy and the rights of mankind were recorded in the Greek city-states of antiquity. As human society has evolved with the passing of the centuries so too has our perspective on citizenship, into what we now recognise as our modern interpretation of the expectations and rights of the citizen within the nation or state to which they belong. “Citizenship refers not only to a legal status, but also to a normative, democratic ideal. Citizenship is intended to provide a common status which helps integrate members of society.” (Concise Routledge Encyclopaedia of Philosophy; 142)
This essay will set out to examine the concept …show more content…
In this particular case the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by Congress to revoke the privileges of citizenship from Mr. Perez due to the consequence of his having voted in a foreign election. In the courts opinion Perez "became involved in foreign political affairs and evidenced an allegiance to another country inconsistent with American citizenship, thereby abandoning his citizenship." (Perez v Brownell, 1958).Warren was one of four dissenting voices who voted against the government in defence of Mr. Perez. Their judgement was vindicated nine years later in the Afroyim v Rusk case (1967), where Mr. Afroyim, a naturalised American citizen was threatened with having his citizenship removed after voting in an Israeli election. The court reversed its decision with a 5-4 majority in favour of Warren’s position, ruling that American citizens had the right to relinquish their citizenship voluntarily but the government had no right to remove that citizenship. The verdict undoubtedly supported the position of the rights of the citizen as superior to the will of the government on this occasion. Warren took his lead on this subject from the acclaimed Hannah Arendt. Writing in post WW2 Arendt, the German born political theorist was a pioneer in relating …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) made an early and significant contribution to the debate. Hobbe’s “Leviathan (1651)” sets out his argument that civil and social unity can be best accomplished by the implementation of a social contract between the citizenry and the state. In Hobbes ‘civil society’ each individual would forfeit some of their natural rights and sovereignty over themselves for the greater good of the nation and to afford the protection of the state from harm, as citizens within its borders. Hobbes emphasis was placed on authoritarian, centralised government required to control the conflicting interests of individuals within society, with the collective working for the sole benefit of the Sovereign or monarch heading the state. Hobbes was essentially a totalitarian monarchist but many of his thoughts still managed to form much of the basis of modern liberal Western philosophy. In the opinion of the American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) “Hobbes 's Leviathan is the greatest single work of political thought in the English language”(pp 23, 1) Hobbe’s set down for the first time the idea of the social contract in which the citizenry worked for the betterment of the state and the state for the betterment of the citizenry. Hobbe’s also brought into existence the idea of a state supported welfare system for those “unable to maintain themselves by their labour” (Hobbes, pp, 149; 1). Up until
This essay will set out to examine the concept …show more content…
In this particular case the US Supreme Court upheld a decision by Congress to revoke the privileges of citizenship from Mr. Perez due to the consequence of his having voted in a foreign election. In the courts opinion Perez "became involved in foreign political affairs and evidenced an allegiance to another country inconsistent with American citizenship, thereby abandoning his citizenship." (Perez v Brownell, 1958).Warren was one of four dissenting voices who voted against the government in defence of Mr. Perez. Their judgement was vindicated nine years later in the Afroyim v Rusk case (1967), where Mr. Afroyim, a naturalised American citizen was threatened with having his citizenship removed after voting in an Israeli election. The court reversed its decision with a 5-4 majority in favour of Warren’s position, ruling that American citizens had the right to relinquish their citizenship voluntarily but the government had no right to remove that citizenship. The verdict undoubtedly supported the position of the rights of the citizen as superior to the will of the government on this occasion. Warren took his lead on this subject from the acclaimed Hannah Arendt. Writing in post WW2 Arendt, the German born political theorist was a pioneer in relating …show more content…
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) made an early and significant contribution to the debate. Hobbe’s “Leviathan (1651)” sets out his argument that civil and social unity can be best accomplished by the implementation of a social contract between the citizenry and the state. In Hobbes ‘civil society’ each individual would forfeit some of their natural rights and sovereignty over themselves for the greater good of the nation and to afford the protection of the state from harm, as citizens within its borders. Hobbes emphasis was placed on authoritarian, centralised government required to control the conflicting interests of individuals within society, with the collective working for the sole benefit of the Sovereign or monarch heading the state. Hobbes was essentially a totalitarian monarchist but many of his thoughts still managed to form much of the basis of modern liberal Western philosophy. In the opinion of the American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) “Hobbes 's Leviathan is the greatest single work of political thought in the English language”(pp 23, 1) Hobbe’s set down for the first time the idea of the social contract in which the citizenry worked for the betterment of the state and the state for the betterment of the citizenry. Hobbe’s also brought into existence the idea of a state supported welfare system for those “unable to maintain themselves by their labour” (Hobbes, pp, 149; 1). Up until