The idea of a governing body is essentially the process of people ruling over other people. If people are inherently bad, then humans cannot rule humans without a balancing effect. We have the system of checks and balances not only to hold the branches accountable of each other, but also to evolve the representative democracy we hold. Civil Disobedience positively affects the free society because of the evolution of rights, the balance of power, and the David and Goliath effect.
The government, much like clothing company's, falls prey to social norms and trends. African Americans were strung to the 3/5th rule for voting. Much confusion was brought forth, and women and minorities had to gain the right to vote. The government originally accepted …show more content…
One branch holds limits over the other two branches to hold one another accountable; however, where do the people hold power to join in the balance of powers? Because after all, the government is set up for the people, so shouldn’t the people be able to counterattack the potential empowerment of the government as a whole? One can challenge rules as seen through several success court cases like Tinker vs. Des Moines, several amendments, and several successful civil disobedient heros and heroins. For example, Tinker vs Des Moines symbolically struck the government with great voice. Under the assumption as civil disobedience, the students who wore black armbands at school to show their perspective of avoiding the Vietnam War were banned from school and later recognized as a damper on silent protests violates freedoms in school zones which evolved under the idea that this initial “civil disobedience” was actually now protected because of the first amendment. The first amendment grants the right to several freedom, but one that plays into the controversy of civil disobedience is free speech. Civil disobedience is unjust under the law until proven otherwise. Unjust is a radical stamp set on differences because people or ideas don’t reach the “standard”. In order for a free society, the standard should not exclude anyone. For example, Rosa Parks was an incredible women who sought to bring about justice because of the oppression towards African Americans with her silent actions that shook the foundations of the people and the government. Rosa Parks’s heroic attributes to society, during the trend of the period, were seen as civil disobedience, but would now be seen as an action of free speech to fight
The government, much like clothing company's, falls prey to social norms and trends. African Americans were strung to the 3/5th rule for voting. Much confusion was brought forth, and women and minorities had to gain the right to vote. The government originally accepted …show more content…
One branch holds limits over the other two branches to hold one another accountable; however, where do the people hold power to join in the balance of powers? Because after all, the government is set up for the people, so shouldn’t the people be able to counterattack the potential empowerment of the government as a whole? One can challenge rules as seen through several success court cases like Tinker vs. Des Moines, several amendments, and several successful civil disobedient heros and heroins. For example, Tinker vs Des Moines symbolically struck the government with great voice. Under the assumption as civil disobedience, the students who wore black armbands at school to show their perspective of avoiding the Vietnam War were banned from school and later recognized as a damper on silent protests violates freedoms in school zones which evolved under the idea that this initial “civil disobedience” was actually now protected because of the first amendment. The first amendment grants the right to several freedom, but one that plays into the controversy of civil disobedience is free speech. Civil disobedience is unjust under the law until proven otherwise. Unjust is a radical stamp set on differences because people or ideas don’t reach the “standard”. In order for a free society, the standard should not exclude anyone. For example, Rosa Parks was an incredible women who sought to bring about justice because of the oppression towards African Americans with her silent actions that shook the foundations of the people and the government. Rosa Parks’s heroic attributes to society, during the trend of the period, were seen as civil disobedience, but would now be seen as an action of free speech to fight