The route of progress is not a straight and narrow path. There are numerous times where the great leaders of our country had no other choice but to disobey the law that was put in place for the welfare of the American people. These changes were made in areas that they deem necessary for change to happen. If the leaders had completely sworn off all things that were considered unconstitutional, then the country would not have made any progress over time. Even still, there are plentiful times that unconstitutional things done by leaders that were not used for the good of the American people.
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation began the long, tough journey of civil rights. Though it could be ruled as unconstitutional, it was necessary. Without it, it is difficult to say where our country would be now. This act is unconstitutional because during the 1800s slaves were considered property, and the fifth amendment states “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”(“ Floridalawstudentland-blog.”). The slave’s owners weren’t committing crimes so how would it be just to take their slaves? How is it just for the …show more content…
France owned Louisiana, being that France was known as an aggressor, Jefferson believed that could potentially be a train wreck further down the road (“Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase.”). The executive branch was not allowed to purchase land from foreign countries, though France is a foreign country, Jefferson still had to make the purchase to avoid potential conflict. In the case that France did keep Louisiana, the western economy of the united states would potentially never had flourished. The Mississippi river runs through Louisiana and that river held significance of economic survival to the Western region of America (“Louisiana Purchase”). Thus, France would have had the power to control Americas
Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation began the long, tough journey of civil rights. Though it could be ruled as unconstitutional, it was necessary. Without it, it is difficult to say where our country would be now. This act is unconstitutional because during the 1800s slaves were considered property, and the fifth amendment states “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”(“ Floridalawstudentland-blog.”). The slave’s owners weren’t committing crimes so how would it be just to take their slaves? How is it just for the …show more content…
France owned Louisiana, being that France was known as an aggressor, Jefferson believed that could potentially be a train wreck further down the road (“Jefferson and the Louisiana Purchase.”). The executive branch was not allowed to purchase land from foreign countries, though France is a foreign country, Jefferson still had to make the purchase to avoid potential conflict. In the case that France did keep Louisiana, the western economy of the united states would potentially never had flourished. The Mississippi river runs through Louisiana and that river held significance of economic survival to the Western region of America (“Louisiana Purchase”). Thus, France would have had the power to control Americas