Majority Rule and Minority Rights in American Government Essay

Majority Rule and Minority Rights in American Government - Essay Example 3). Indeed, there are several places in the Constitution where suspicion of unchecked majority power is evident - from the Bill of Rights to the structure of the Senate to the Electoral College. To be sure, some historical events that ran relatively concurrent with the birth of the United States, primarily the French Revolution and its associated "Reign of Terror," provided ample illustration of the potential for majority rule to degenerate into mob rule. Majority rule means a system of government in which the will of the majority if given full force and effect within the laws and regulations of the country. It is, essentially, a pure democracy. Minority rights are those liberties and privileges that naturally accrue toward those who do not necessarily agree with the will of the majority. The latter rights have been associated with the concepts of natural law and human rights, whereby those in the minority deserve to be treated with a certain minimum level of dignity and respect simply because they are humans and citizens of the country that acknowledges and respects those natural rights. In his seminal work On Liberty, John Stuart Mill lays his doctrine of the right of individuals to act in any way they choose so long as it does not interfere with the freedom of others. This notion of liberty is essential to minority rights in a democracy. Democracy in the United States In many ways, the United States Constitution does not really set up a majority rule system - that is, it is not a true democracy. A close evaluation of the various branches of government reveals that the only body that is designed to be truly responsive to the will of the majority is the House of Representatives, established under Article 1 of the Constitution. The President is not even directly elected by the people under Article 2 of the Constitution; the Senate's lengthy six year terms arguably insulate its members from the whim of the majority (Article 1); and members of the Supreme Court, where the buck truly stops on how Americans are governed, are appointed for life by this President and Senate that are buffered from the will of the majority (Article 3). Moreover, the Constitution established a federal system in which the states retain substantial sovereignty in nearly all matters of government, greatly limiting the extent to which the central government of the U.S. has the power to impose the will of the national majority. The 10th Amendment states that all powers not specifically enumerated within the Constitution as belonging to the federal government are reserved to the states. Thus, it is necessary that some specific provision of the Constitution grants authority to the federal government in order for it to legally regulate any given area. In that vein, the commerce clause, granting to the federal government the power to regulate interstate commerce, has often been heavily relied upon to justify laws enacted by Congress. This has come to the great chagrin of many strict constructionists, who have protested the Supreme Court's invoking of the commerce clause to uphold the legality of many federal laws that have had a connection t o interstate commerce that is tenuous at best. The effects of these severe

Principles of criminal liability Term Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Principles of criminal liability - Term Paper Example The rule that says that the prosecutor has to prove every element of the principles beyond reasonable doubt is called â€Å"corpus delicti rule† (Hall, 2011). When a crime is committed, it is said to have some elements that directly show how and why the crime has been committed in a broad view. These elements may include the presence of a mental state, a prohibited action and a lack of legal justification. These elements should be proven by the prosecutor beyond reasonable doubt and in the cases where these elements are not proven, the person who is charged of the crime should be charged not guilty. The principles are mens rea, actus reus, concordance and causation. These principles are related to one another in a significant way as if one doesn’t satisfy, then it can change the whole scenario, and thus all should collectively apply on the crime (Lanser and  Bloy, 2000). Mens rea Mens rea is the Latin word for â€Å"guilty mind†. This is an element which shows that every crime is convicted in a state of mind. It is the state of mind of the defendant when he is or has committed the prohibited act of crime. In the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, the primary source used to define mens rea sets four standards. These standards suggest that the guilty mind can be attributed to those individuals who commit crimes â€Å"purposely†, â€Å"knowingly†, â€Å"recklessly†, or â€Å"negligently†. There have been developed statutes that provide more to the definition of these elements and they specify which mental states apply to which particular crimes (Hall, 2005). When an individual knows that his act will cause an expected negative result, it is â€Å"purposely†. When he commits an act being aware that his conduct will be highly risky of causing a negative result, he acts â€Å"knowingly†. When he knows that the act is going to be risky and still disregards the existence of the unjustifiabl e risks associated with the act, he is said to act â€Å"recklessly†. Lastly, if the individual has totally deviated themselves from the standard of care that he has towards a reasonable person, so he has committed the act â€Å"negligently†. In the criminal law, mens rea is considered as one of the most important and necessary elements that have to be present at the time of a crime. The common law system made the rule that the liability applies on the criminal on the grounds that the act will not make a person guilty of charge until and unless his mind is also guilty. Thus, it is important that there should be actus reus where mens rea is present to make sure that the defendant is charged of the crime he committed. So it can be held that the person who committed a crime without being at mental fault is generally not criminally liable for that act (Hall, 2005). Mens rea is not required in civil law as a subjective element to prove liability, but if a tort or a contract is breached with wrong intention, that may be counted in the offence and it would increase the scope of the liability on the offender and the measure of damages may be increased that have to be paid to the plaintiff. Therefore, it is evident that the existence of mens rea allows the accompanying principle of the actus reus as well and is closely related to each other. Without the presence of any one, liability will not be imposed (Hall, 2011). The principle issues on which mens rea is applied hold many stages of development. Some issues are said to be