The Sokovia accords are a set of documents ratified by 117 countries in the United Nations to regulate the international deployment and involvement of “enhanced humans”. The accords require that every enhanced human be registered and monitored and that any involvement in a conflict or disaster by an enhanced human be first sanctioned by a panel appointed by the United Nations. Along with many other countries the accords were supported and signed by the United States which bring up some issues regarding if the accords are constitutional. Is it constitutional to force people to be registered, to regulate the actions of free citizens, and limit the use of weapons? Is it constitutional to force people to be register so they may be monitored?
…show more content…
Let's start with limiting their actions, without the government's support these enhanced humans often act as vigilantes fighting crime regardless of the law, but now with the accords they would be promptly controlled, this is not really a problem constitutionally because being a vigilante is illegal in most cases. While there are laws that allow for enhanced humans to act as a vigilante but only so far, like stand your ground laws but for the most part they are engaging other people and chasing after them and sometimes killing them and all of that is highly illegal and not close to being covered constitutionally. Also there is the restricting the use of their powers/skills/weapons this is kind of spotty constitutionally because of the second amendment does protect the use of some of these weapons but does it cover super human skills. Is it constitutional to stop someone from using their power, this is not covered any where one way or the other so let's just ignore restricting powers and skills. That leaves weapons while the owning and using of basic weapons is covered by the second amendment as long as the proper permit is in place most of the time these enhanced humans are in possession of extremely dangerous weapons for example explosive, chemical, and automatic weapons all of which are banned to own under the: safe explosives act, 8 U.S. Code Chapter 11B ,The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) respectively. This
Let's start with limiting their actions, without the government's support these enhanced humans often act as vigilantes fighting crime regardless of the law, but now with the accords they would be promptly controlled, this is not really a problem constitutionally because being a vigilante is illegal in most cases. While there are laws that allow for enhanced humans to act as a vigilante but only so far, like stand your ground laws but for the most part they are engaging other people and chasing after them and sometimes killing them and all of that is highly illegal and not close to being covered constitutionally. Also there is the restricting the use of their powers/skills/weapons this is kind of spotty constitutionally because of the second amendment does protect the use of some of these weapons but does it cover super human skills. Is it constitutional to stop someone from using their power, this is not covered any where one way or the other so let's just ignore restricting powers and skills. That leaves weapons while the owning and using of basic weapons is covered by the second amendment as long as the proper permit is in place most of the time these enhanced humans are in possession of extremely dangerous weapons for example explosive, chemical, and automatic weapons all of which are banned to own under the: safe explosives act, 8 U.S. Code Chapter 11B ,The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) respectively. This