According to Governor Wallace, what principles justify the segregation of the University of Alabama?
I was reminded recently of a post I published – when I was all the same studying law – about simply and unjust laws based on Dr. Martin Luther Rex's "letter of the alphabet from Birmingham Jail". I thought that some of you lot might find it an interesting read as well, so I will republish it here.
In his "letter from Birmingham jail" Martin Luther King jr. writes about something he calls 'only' and 'unjust' laws. He makes a articulate distinction betwixt both of them.
In his words: "A just police force is a human being made code that squares with the moral police force or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral police force."
He makes a distinction, that shares shut resemblance to the philosophy of the Romans during their empire, they fabricated a clear distinction between:
* Ius Gentium
* Ius Naturalis
Ius Gentium is 'ius' or 'law' that is universally practiced. For example: When someone buys a sure product, 1 has got to pay for it, stealing is not allowed, nor is murder. In the time of the Romans, however, slavery was universally used and accepted as well.
Ius Naturalis ways 'natural law' or 'moral law' (encounter resemblance with dr. Male monarch: exact same discussion). Certain things could fall under the Ius Gentium but not nether Ius Naturalis. The best way of explaining the difference is slavery: Although slavery was universally used in their time (thus it was Ius Gentium), the Romans themselves condidered information technology in breach with Ius Naturalis or moral law.
Dr. Martin Luther King goes farther to explain the difference between a just and an unjust police force:
"Whatsoever law that uplifts human being personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust."
In the Roman empire they lived, mostly, by the Ius Gentium: Although they recognized that Ius Gentium was in breach, now and then, with Ius Naturalis.
Dr. Martin Luther King jr. even so thinks dissimilar. He wrote in his alphabetic character:
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
He is using the instance of certain Nazi laws. The Nazis occupied my country (The Netherlands) likewise as many other countries. They fabricated and enforced terrible laws here. For instance: It was illegal to hide Jews in one'south home from the Nazis. Only, if one hid a Jew dispite it beingness illegal, 1 saved a life: Jews that would get caught would be transport to and imprisoned in camps. Generally, of grade, decease camps.
This law is an example dr. King uses in his letter from Birmingham jail too.
A police force such as that is an unjust law he explains. For different reasons: It downgrades the individual, it makes a distinction betwixt different 'groups' of people andsoforth. Thus; he condidered information technology to be the moral responsibility of people living in Nazi occupied countries during the second world war to ignore any laws like it.
Personally I concord with his entire letter. I also believe nosotros have all got certain 'natural rights'. In other words, to me at that place exists something similar a 'moral law' or a 'Godly law'. His explanation of what is just and what is unjust are exactly the same as my ideas well-nigh them.
Hence: personally I agree with him: This as well means I personally agree that we accept the moral responsibleness to disobey whatever unjust, merely unmoral constabulary.
Only as a law student I can not help but to ask certain questions:
* Tin nosotros afford such an mental attitude as police studetns, lawyers, judges, andsoforth?
* Should it not be so that a judge decides what laws are just and what laws are unjust?
* And should it not be politically and legally highly hypocritical if we did not requite the aforementioned potency to people with a unlike interpretation of 'just' and 'unjust'? If we have the dominance to make up one's mind what laws are just and what laws are unjust and by doing so disobeying certain laws, should non people with a different definition take that 'correct' too? If we would reason like that, would we not be opening the door to fascists to pause laws they regard as 'unjust'?
* Does this not polute and destroy our entire autonomous / legal system?
I believe, like dr. King, that all of usa have got certain unalienable rights. Rights that are detracted from 'moral constabulary' or the 'Law of God'. Merely I also believe citizens have got the duty in a constitutional democratic lodge to obey the laws of the country. When we, for instance, were occupied by the Germans, constitutional republic was destroyed: Because this type of democracy was destroyed I believe every citizen in Kingdom of the netherlands had the moral responsibility to fight confronting the Germans every way they mayhap could.
Merely in a constitutional autonomous country the situation is unlike. I believe that in a democratic society judges should determine what is just and what is unjust – better said; in our western ramble democracies nosotros have all got certain Constitutional rights and / or Human Rights. Our Constitutions are as close as we tin get to codifying the moral, natural or Godly law in my opinion. In other words: If a law is unjust a guess should declare it so.
Also: The 'people' or maybe I should say the majority determine what laws are 'just' and what laws are 'unjust'. If a citizen disagrees with the existence of a certain law there are dissimilar ways of fighting that law legally. Ane could hold rallies confronting its existence, one could file petitions confronting its existence, ane could run 'for office', the list continues.
In other words: In a constitutional autonomous system, are there not plenty legal ways of fighting an unjust law?
Well; yes. At that place are many ways of fighting them in our Western constitutional democratic societies simply democracy also simply ways the majority rules. In other words: The bulk decides about what laws come to being. Well: If the majority wants to make a law that is 'unjust' that police force will probably laissez passer, in the United states of america for instance, Congress, merely… it will not laissez passer the Supreme Courtroom. The Supreme Courts tests laws on the Constitution: are they constitutional? Like I explained; our Western Constitutions are equally close every bit we tin can get to codifying moral law. Therefore; they are not but testing a law on its constitutionality, but too on its morality.
This would be the normal fashion of 'checks and balances'.
But, in the time of Martin Luther King jr. (especially before that time though) the Supreme Courtroom did non fully fulfil its duties. It did not fulfil its responsibility. The laws, for instance, that were in favor of segregation were conspicuously unconstitutional and thus unmoral and thus unjust. However; segregation existed for decades and decades.
In other words: In this ramble republic every branch who should defend the 'constitutional' part of the expression failed in the responsibleness.
To take this fifty-fifty further; the 'constitutional' function of 'constitutional democracy' did not be. It was a democracy, but no a constitutional one.
This post is getting way too long, so I volition skip sure steps in the thinking process: One has got the duty to obey every law in a ramble democracy, simply when the constitutional part is taken out of it, or fifty-fifty the 'democracy' part of information technology besides, this duty does not be anymore. Actually; in a lodge that is not a ramble democracy anymore one has got the duty, or the responsibility as dr. Martin Luther Male monarch jr. calls information technology to re-install the constitutional role of a 'constitutional democracy'.
What does this hateful for me, other law students and those who piece of work with / for the law? This but ways nosotros should fight every unjust law legally at start. When a law is made that is unjust, thus unconstitutional, we should fight information technology: politically and legally; legally meaning in the court.
Once that does non succeed, thus once every branch acts in breach of the Constitution, thus unjust, thus unmoral, it can but mean the ramble role of a 'constitutional republic' is under assault, or does not exist anymore. At that moment nosotros, not just the 'boilerplate citizen' but legal scholars andsoforth too, take the responsibility to disobey these unjust / unmoral laws whatever way nosotros can.
I practise not know whether this point of view makes me an outcast, so to speak, in legal circles. What I do know still, is that if I live similar this, I will be protecting our Constitution, I will be defending (our) justice (system) and that I will ever have a good and healthy censor. Is not that what life is all about?
And if you all agree with this, what does this mean in the present day? What are the consequences of information technology now?
Source: https://themoderatevoice.com/just-and-unjust-laws-according-to-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/
0 Response to "According to Governor Wallace, what principles justify the segregation of the University of Alabama?"
Post a Comment