When it comes to the laws of a land and whether we should abide by them, there is always extraordinary cases that shows that there may be potential flaws in the legislature. Before I begin to discuss my views, I think it would be helpful to discuss the point of view I am speaking from. I am an African American woman born and raised in New York City. I am knowledgeable about the American Law system. I know little to nothing about any other countries laws, so I have nothing to contrast the American Laws with. I stand by many of the laws in the Constitution and many New York state laws. They grant every citizen with many protections and freedoms that we probably wouldn’t have had if we didn’t have them. I stand by America’s form of representative
…show more content…
They all hold one common factor that unites them together. As Socrates stated in 51d, everyone has willingly agreed to be a part of society when they become an adult and decided to stay under the protection of the law. In theory, they should obey all the laws set by the government. Nevertheless, it would be stupid to say that every law that is put in place benefits everyone in the society. There are always exceptions to the laws or the laws are twisted for people with negative agendas. Thus, my opinion of having laws that represent the majority and not the minority is what is needed to determine if a law is legitimate and good for the society. When laws only benefit a small portion of society and not most of it, then the society will not be united together. The society may even start to fall apart. The laws of the land should try to benefit everyone that has agreed to be a part of it. Even though, it’s impossible for any law to do that. It is possible to make laws that protect most of the people in the society. For example, if a law only protects 20% of the population and leaves the rest at a disadvantage, it should be outlawed. Everyone, no matter your background, is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The United States is far from being a utopia, but it does a good job of protecting its citizens’ rights. Of course there are many exceptions because sometimes there may be majority tyranny, but as a general rule the laws should benefit as many people as it possibly
They all hold one common factor that unites them together. As Socrates stated in 51d, everyone has willingly agreed to be a part of society when they become an adult and decided to stay under the protection of the law. In theory, they should obey all the laws set by the government. Nevertheless, it would be stupid to say that every law that is put in place benefits everyone in the society. There are always exceptions to the laws or the laws are twisted for people with negative agendas. Thus, my opinion of having laws that represent the majority and not the minority is what is needed to determine if a law is legitimate and good for the society. When laws only benefit a small portion of society and not most of it, then the society will not be united together. The society may even start to fall apart. The laws of the land should try to benefit everyone that has agreed to be a part of it. Even though, it’s impossible for any law to do that. It is possible to make laws that protect most of the people in the society. For example, if a law only protects 20% of the population and leaves the rest at a disadvantage, it should be outlawed. Everyone, no matter your background, is guaranteed equal protection under the law. The United States is far from being a utopia, but it does a good job of protecting its citizens’ rights. Of course there are many exceptions because sometimes there may be majority tyranny, but as a general rule the laws should benefit as many people as it possibly