Issue17 不公平的法律 - 7.14 纯论证行不行？考试碰到我肯定不写这个-_-||

gtjohnUID: 2813321

TOPIC: ISSUE17 - "There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."

Among the ancient Greek Titan, Themis, some classical representative of who were blindfolded, holding a scale and double-edged sword, always described as "of good counsel" and is the embodiment of law. The path to divine justice likes the way to make the scale balance, we do our best to seek justice even often deviate from it, indeed, we should resist unjust laws while protect the supreme law, the Constitution, with our sword even if may hurt us when some laws disobey it.

Laws, which define the benefits and rights and regulate the behaviors of people in order to maintain the order of society, always, have their limitations. While reflecting political, economical and cultural statues, they were restricted by the ideas, customs and morality of people at that time when laws were drafted. Legislators made regulations and rules according to contemporary social conditions and often in favor of dominant society. Even the utmost principle of law system, the Constitution, can not transcend the limitation of times. Therefore, we have the obligation to keep an eye on the legal system and amend it when revisions are truly needed.

I concede that there remain some countries whose regimes are unstable and laws are designed to secure their governmental power rather than serve the people, however, in most democratic societies, we ought to obey the legal system even if it has flaws, since we need laws to protect our interests and rights. Laws, as the fundamental and defender of democracy, should be respected as we respect the democracy. If we obey the laws we deem as just and disobey the laws we take for unjust, how can the law system and followed the government preserves its prestige and authority? Without the trust and awe by the citizens, the collapse of the legal system will lead to the collapse of the country.

Someone may argue that, given the laws have flaws how can we judge a law is just or not? The answer is: the Constitution. It is not the only but most important principle we have to follow, indicating the judgment criterion for us. As the basic and supreme law of each democratic country, the Constitution is the footstone by which we builds up the country, and represents the most significant ideas and value standards of the people in this country. The Constitution is the common code for the people in the society.

When facing the laws that deviate from the spirit of the Constitution, each citizen with social conscience has the duty to make no efforts to defend the prestige of the Constitution, just like what Martin Luther King had done in the US Civil Rights Movement. We have the rights while have the obligations to voice our eager demands for freedom, equality and justice, through what the Constitution has endowed us such as civil rights. Yet, it does not mean people could resist these laws which violate the principle of the Constitution by such methods that the Constitution hasn’t given us right to do as violence. Violence brings more violence rather than nondiscrimination, equality and respects which people intend to achieve.

We cherish the peace and order these just laws provide us today, we will fight and to the end with unjust laws under the given rights of the Constitution. People will never stop the pursuit of justice.

gtjohnUID: 2813321

小组成员有空帮我改呀。。。

追梦小木耳UID: 2781857

Among the ancient Greek Titan, Themis, some classical representative of who were blindfolded, holding a scale and double-edged sword, always described as "of good counsel" and is the embodiment of law. The path to divine justice likes the way to make the scale balance, we do our best to seek justice even often deviate from it, indeed, we should resist unjust laws while protect the supreme law, the Constitution, 宪法就一定公正吗？独裁社会的肯定不公正吧with our sword even if may hurt us when some laws disobey it.  even if 后面没明白

Laws, which define the benefits and rights and regulate the behaviors of people in order to maintain the order of society, always, have their limitations. While reflecting political, economical and cultural statues, they were are restricted by the ideas, customs and morality of people at that the time when laws were drafted. Legislators made regulations and rules according to contemporary social conditions and often in favor of dominant society.啥意思？偏爱统治阶级？ Even the utmost principle of law system, the Constitution, can not transcend the limitation of times. Therefore, we have the obligation to keep an eye on the legal system and amend it when revisions are truly needed.

I concede that there remain some countries whose regimes are unstable and laws are designed to secure their governmental power rather than serve the people, however, in most democratic societies, we ought to obey the legal system even if it has flaws, since we need laws to protect our interests and rights. Laws, as the fundamental and defender of democracy, should be respected as we respect the democracy. If we obey the laws we deem as just and disobey the laws we take for unjust, how can the law system and followed 这个词在这里什么意思the government preserves its prestige and authority? Without the trust and awe by the citizens, the collapse of the legal system will lead to the collapse of the country.

Someone may argue that, given the laws have flaws how can we judge a law is just or not? The answer is: the Constitution. It is not the only but most important principle we have to follow, indicating the judgment criterion for us. As the basic and supreme law of each democratic country, the Constitution is the footstone by which we builds up the country, and represents the most significant ideas and value standards of the people in this country. The Constitution is the common code for the people in the society.我觉得用宪法来判断law公不公正不妥吧。宪法也是law啊。万一有些法律是很有争议的，宪法也说不清怎么办？？

When facing the laws that deviate from the spirit of the Constitution, each citizen with social conscience has the duty to make no efforts to defend the prestige of the Constitution, just like what Martin Luther King had done in the US Civil Rights Movement. We have the rights while have and the obligations to voice our eager demands for freedom, equality and justice, through what the Constitution has endowed us such as civil rights. Yet, it does not mean people could resist these laws which violate the principle of the Constitution by such methods that the Constitution hasn’t given us right to do as violence. Violence brings more violence rather than nondiscrimination, equality and respects which people intend to achieve.
宪法说人人平等，人人享有自由，那么什么是平等呢？什么是公正呢？宪法都没有定义吧

We cherish the peace and order these just laws provide us today, we will fight and to the end with unjust laws under the given rights of the Constitution. People will never stop the pursuit of justice.

我觉得单说用宪法判断太简单了，毕竟宪法也是法律

gtjohnUID: 2813321

3# 追梦小木耳
果然这样不行么...我想撇开混乱的法律定义，在美国宪法的背景下面讨论。
因为美国的宪法1. 规定了人民的权利限制了政府的权力。2. 是美国人都认同的。3. 是最高法，任何法律不得违背宪法。4. 历史上，宪法只有修正，正文没有过修改。5. 马丁路德金反对的是不公正的法律，不是宪法，他是用宪法赋予的权利来争取公正。

以上是文章的立足点。。。因为大家路数都差不多，讲来讲去将不清楚，所以尝试了新的思路

lxin333UID: 2650844

感觉这边的MLK例子用得好啊

丁路德金反对的是不公正的法律，不是宪法，他是用宪法赋予的权利来争取公正。

学习了~宪法作为切入点是挺好的想法,however

我觉得用宪法来判断law公不公正不妥吧。宪法也是law啊。万一有些法律是很有争议的，宪法也说不清怎么办？？

不知道宪法可不可以当law的一种情况来说，这样一样是从宪法入手，因为宪法是the basic and supreme law还是具有一定代表性的吧？！
我自己认为这题还有这么写法。。。just and unjust 是相对的，在人们观念中普遍存在，而法律也是为大众服务的，这样的话根据个人意愿就选择遵守或者不遵守法律将会带来不和谐。。。。所以要辩证的看待事物，会发现总有矛盾的对立面，法律不可能PERFECT但是可以修正，前提是保证了大多数人的利益，维护社会秩序~

doraliuUID: 2842061

我觉得写的还是很不错啊，但是也认同3#的观点，然后。。。。。个人认为just unjust比较主观，宪法不是评判标准啊。。。。。

hyacinthUID: 2184492

法律不可能PERFECT但是可以修正，前提是保证了大多数人的利益，维护社会秩序~
lxin333 发表于 2010-7-17 09:53

貌似只有中国的宪法才是不停的被改啊改的。。。

hyacinthUID: 2184492

美国立国之本就是宪法啊。。。除了后来加过一些AMENDMENT 几百年了没有变过。。。

而且上来就是

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

个人觉得美国人的正义和非正义都是从这个入手的。。。他们没有中国那么多年的道德观。。。

大家有空其实可以读读美国宪法。。。不长的。。。当年为了赶历史PAPER 读过。。。很快就看完了。。。

http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html

LZ的文章明天睡醒了再看看。。。发现这个题目挺有意思。。。明天我也要去练练手

figuechenUID: 2850619

总觉得Martin Luther King的例子相当奇怪，因为这个题就是出自他的一篇文章Letter from Birmingham Jail，用他的例子来反驳他的观点？我觉得如果要用一个例子来证明遵守宪法的“违法”行为的话可以考虑甘地的非暴力不合作运动，而且他们俩对于宪法是遵守了，但是对于那些他们认为的unjust law还是进行了反抗的啊

希望和大家探讨一下这个问题。。。

StefanaUID: 2143510

总觉得Martin Luther King的例子相当奇怪，因为这个题就是出自他的一篇文章Letter from Birmingham Jail，用他的例子来反驳他的观点？我觉得如果要用一个例子来证明遵守宪法的“违法”行为的话可以考虑甘地的非暴力不 ...
figuechen 发表于 2010-7-17 15:40

我倒觉得如果能反驳，用他的例子其实也是可以的。
话说很久以前我也发过这题的讨论，有兴趣的可以看一下。
不过基本是没什么结果的讨论。
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthread.php?tid=932258&highlight=