Democracy and liberty are often thought to be the same thing, but they are not.
Democracy means that people ought to be able to vote for public officials in fair elections, and make most political decisions by majority rule.
Liberty, on the other hand, means that even in a democracy, individuals have rights that no majority should be able to take away.
The rights that the Constitution's framers wanted to protect from government abuse were referred to in the Declaration of Independence as "unalienable rights." They were also called "natural" rights, and to James Madison, they were "the great rights of mankind." Although it is commonly thought that we are entitled to free speech because the First Amendment gives it to us, this country's original citizens believed that as human beings, they were entitled to free speech, and they invented the First Amendment in order to protect it. The entire Bill of Rights was created to protect rights the original citizens believed were naturally theirs, including:
Freedom of Religion
The right to exercise one's own religion, or no religion, free from any government influence or compulsion.
Freedom of Speech, Press, Petition, and Assembly
Even unpopular expression is protected from government suppression or censorship.
Privacy
The right to be free of unwarranted and unwanted government intrusion into one's personal and private affairs, papers, and possessions.
Due Process of Law
The right to be treated fairly by the government whenever the loss of liberty or property is at stake.
Equality Before the Law
The right to be treated equally before the law, regardless of social status.
"An Impenetrable Bulwark" of Liberty
The Bill of Rights established soaring principles that guaranteed the most fundamental rights in very general terms. But from the beginning, real live cases arose that raised difficult questions about how, and even if, the Bill of Rights would be applied. Before the paper rights could become actual rights, someone had to interpret what the language of the Bill of Rights meant in specific situations. Who would be the final arbiter of how the Constitution should be applied?
At first, the answer was unclear. Thomas Jefferson thought that the federal judiciary should have that power; James Madison agreed that a system of independent courts would be “an impenetrable bulwark” of liberty. But the Constitution did not make this explicit, and the issue would not be resolved until 1803. That year, for the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down an act of Congress as unconstitutional in a case called Marbury v. Madison. Although the facts of this case were fairly mundane (a dispute over the Secretary of State's refusal to commission four judges appointed by the Senate), the principle it established — that the Supreme Court had the power to nullify acts of Congress that violated the Constitution — turned out to be the key to the development and protection of most of the rights Americans enjoy today. According to one eminent legal scholar, the independent judiciary was “America's most distinctive contribution to constitutionalism.”
Which detail from the text provides the best clue for the meaning of "arbiter" in Paragraph 14?
A." The Bill of Rights established soaring principles that guaranteed the most fundamental rights in very general terms". (Paragraph 14)
B." But from the beginning, real live cases arose that raised difficult questions about how, even if, the Bill of Rights would be applied". (Paragraph 14)
C. "Before the paper rights could become actual rights, someone had to interpret what the language of the Bill of Rights meant in specific situations". (Paragraph 14)
D. "At first, the answer was unclear." (Paragraph 15)
choose the correct answer
1 answer
The correct answer is:
C. "Before the paper rights could become actual rights, someone had to interpret what the language of the Bill of Rights meant in specific situations." (Paragraph 14)
This detail provides the best clue for the meaning of "arbiter," as it emphasizes the need for someone to interpret and make decisions regarding the application of the Bill of Rights in various contexts. An "arbiter" is someone who has the authority to decide or settle a dispute.
1 answer
1 answer
5 answers
3 answers