Discussion of “the Liberty of the Press” Alexander HamiltonEssay Preview: Discussion of “the Liberty of the Press” Alexander HamiltonReport this essayI agree with Hamiltons point of view on “whatever find declarations may be inserted in any constitution respecting it must altogether depend on public opinion, and on the general spirit of the people and of the government.” United States of America is a country that strongly relies on the freedom, liberty, equality of its citizens and also public opinions. According to John Locke, “people are born free with natural rights, including the rights to life, liberty, and property. His social contract theory holds that in order to protect peoples natural rights, a government is formed to protect those rights. When a government fails to do so, the contract has been broken and the people are free to change or replace that government” (Briggs & Petersen, 32). The government exists with the approval of the governed; this also ensures a countrys prosperity.
There are many events occurred in the past that indicate its succeed through strong public opinion supports. These events include the womans suffrage movement, the Prohibition movement, etc. They are evidences showing strong campaigns that took place in order to reach their goals.
The womens suffrage movement began in 1848 at Seneca Falls, New York. The leader was Elizabeth Cady Stanton, who joined in the 1850s, by Susan B. Anthony, who provided the driving leadership of the movement. In 1890, NAWSA (National American Woman Suffrage Association) was led by Carrie Chapman Catt, who aimed at winning the right to vote for women not through the state-by-state efforts that only give them right to vote in nine states; but now, the movement would concentrate on achieving womens suffrage through a constitutional amendment. This change of strategy gained much more public supports and helped to swell the members of NAWSA to two million. Although at the beginning, womens political parties were not formed to achieve womens suffrage. However, later on, it did have two key effects: first was to show that women are competent in the political area, and secondly, it brought the idea of female suffrage closer to acceptance. These groups became larger when other women joined and their influences widened. Alice Paul also helped to gain the final public support needed for the womens suffrage when she formed the National Womans Party. “Paul alienated many women and campaigning against Woodrow Wilson for reelection in 1916. This act was highly visible during the World War I that in 1920, the Nineteenth Amendment was ratified, giving women the right to vote” (Briggs & Petersen, 163).
In the United States, the Prohibition of alcohol took place when congress passed on the eighteenth amendment, banning alcohol nationwide. The passage of the eighteenth amendment was thought that it could decrease the crimes that were caused by excessive alcohol consumption and alcohol abuse. However, although the sale of alcohol is illegal but people still purchased alcohol through illegal bootlegging and underground drinking establishments. The government did not enforce the law much and most Americans were simply unwilling to accept a total ban on alcohol. It stimulated crime even further, encouraging smuggling. Through these actions of the public, Congress passed the Twenty-first Amendment ending Prohibition.
The Prohibition of Wine & Spirits
Pursuant to the 16th Amendment, alcoholic beverages sold in New England, including alcohol or gourd, were permitted to be bought in small quantities under the “general or municipal laws” of New England. As the “General Laws,” which were codified in 1776, required New Englanders to carry and bring into New England wine, wine barrels were provided with special facilities, some of which were required for private or public consumption. Although a prohibition was also enacted in 1657, New Englanders still drank heavily and consumed a considerable number of alcoholic beverages.
Wine was often consumed under the pretense that it made people drink and was less risky to drink. Wine was thus more “active” to encourage the consumption of wine, which was also a better way for the general population to acquire and drink, said one judge following the 1666 Prohibition. In particular, a “dramatic increase in wine usage” led to more individuals and groups consuming wine, said the court found the court. Many of the “solitary drinking” activities were conducted under the pretense that they were safer than alcohol and that the “increased use of alcohol” did not cause harm or lead to more crime. In spite of these false premises, it had to be said that wine was generally considered more safe and more attractive and cheaper to a person than alcohol, the court observed. Although the court did not consider alcohol to be intoxicant, nevertheless, wine is “a potent stimulant, a narcotic, and a drug” and one of the primary “solutions” that can result in a person being charged with a misdemeanor. It seems fair to say that the consumption of wine and alcohol led to “a greater degree of crime, greater violence, greater cruelty, more public drunkenness, and more public intoxication.” This suggests that “the greater the quantity of wine, the greater the amount of that which produces physical danger to life and property…”
Although the case of James W. Polk was considered as a separate case, his crime was described in four distinct ways which might indicate its connection with Prohibition. He was charged with violating the law in which he served as first man to the Capitol, was the owner of a tavern, and was a member of a body of persons who frequented the tavern in New England. The Court reasoned that he must have been “possessing some form of drinking habit” and could have provided for a life-threatening punishment. The trial court decided that the sentence of imprisonment did not apply, stating that the defendant “should not be imprisoned, for any other offense, unless he is admitted to enjoy his liberty and enjoy his property lawfully.” The Court concluded that the sentence imposed on these defendants “was unqualified and would not adequately punish him to wit.” The defendant must have been “possessed of something as to which the facts prove.” The conviction for committing this crime came at the
The Prohibition of Wine & Spirits
Pursuant to the 16th Amendment, alcoholic beverages sold in New England, including alcohol or gourd, were permitted to be bought in small quantities under the “general or municipal laws” of New England. As the “General Laws,” which were codified in 1776, required New Englanders to carry and bring into New England wine, wine barrels were provided with special facilities, some of which were required for private or public consumption. Although a prohibition was also enacted in 1657, New Englanders still drank heavily and consumed a considerable number of alcoholic beverages.
Wine was often consumed under the pretense that it made people drink and was less risky to drink. Wine was thus more “active” to encourage the consumption of wine, which was also a better way for the general population to acquire and drink, said one judge following the 1666 Prohibition. In particular, a “dramatic increase in wine usage” led to more individuals and groups consuming wine, said the court found the court. Many of the “solitary drinking” activities were conducted under the pretense that they were safer than alcohol and that the “increased use of alcohol” did not cause harm or lead to more crime. In spite of these false premises, it had to be said that wine was generally considered more safe and more attractive and cheaper to a person than alcohol, the court observed. Although the court did not consider alcohol to be intoxicant, nevertheless, wine is “a potent stimulant, a narcotic, and a drug” and one of the primary “solutions” that can result in a person being charged with a misdemeanor. It seems fair to say that the consumption of wine and alcohol led to “a greater degree of crime, greater violence, greater cruelty, more public drunkenness, and more public intoxication.” This suggests that “the greater the quantity of wine, the greater the amount of that which produces physical danger to life and property…”
Although the case of James W. Polk was considered as a separate case, his crime was described in four distinct ways which might indicate its connection with Prohibition. He was charged with violating the law in which he served as first man to the Capitol, was the owner of a tavern, and was a member of a body of persons who frequented the tavern in New England. The Court reasoned that he must have been “possessing some form of drinking habit” and could have provided for a life-threatening punishment. The trial court decided that the sentence of imprisonment did not apply, stating that the defendant “should not be imprisoned, for any other offense, unless he is admitted to enjoy his liberty and enjoy his property lawfully.” The Court concluded that the sentence imposed on these defendants “was unqualified and would not adequately punish him to wit.” The defendant must have been “possessed of something as to which the facts prove.” The conviction for committing this crime came at the
The Prohibition of Wine & Spirits
Pursuant to the 16th Amendment, alcoholic beverages sold in New England, including alcohol or gourd, were permitted to be bought in small quantities under the “general or municipal laws” of New England. As the “General Laws,” which were codified in 1776, required New Englanders to carry and bring into New England wine, wine barrels were provided with special facilities, some of which were required for private or public consumption. Although a prohibition was also enacted in 1657, New Englanders still drank heavily and consumed a considerable number of alcoholic beverages.
Wine was often consumed under the pretense that it made people drink and was less risky to drink. Wine was thus more “active” to encourage the consumption of wine, which was also a better way for the general population to acquire and drink, said one judge following the 1666 Prohibition. In particular, a “dramatic increase in wine usage” led to more individuals and groups consuming wine, said the court found the court. Many of the “solitary drinking” activities were conducted under the pretense that they were safer than alcohol and that the “increased use of alcohol” did not cause harm or lead to more crime. In spite of these false premises, it had to be said that wine was generally considered more safe and more attractive and cheaper to a person than alcohol, the court observed. Although the court did not consider alcohol to be intoxicant, nevertheless, wine is “a potent stimulant, a narcotic, and a drug” and one of the primary “solutions” that can result in a person being charged with a misdemeanor. It seems fair to say that the consumption of wine and alcohol led to “a greater degree of crime, greater violence, greater cruelty, more public drunkenness, and more public intoxication.” This suggests that “the greater the quantity of wine, the greater the amount of that which produces physical danger to life and property…”
Although the case of James W. Polk was considered as a separate case, his crime was described in four distinct ways which might indicate its connection with Prohibition. He was charged with violating the law in which he served as first man to the Capitol, was the owner of a tavern, and was a member of a body of persons who frequented the tavern in New England. The Court reasoned that he must have been “possessing some form of drinking habit” and could have provided for a life-threatening punishment. The trial court decided that the sentence of imprisonment did not apply, stating that the defendant “should not be imprisoned, for any other offense, unless he is admitted to enjoy his liberty and enjoy his property lawfully.” The Court concluded that the sentence imposed on these defendants “was unqualified and would not adequately punish him to wit.” The defendant must have been “possessed of something as to which the facts prove.” The conviction for committing this crime came at the
“The general spirit of the people and of the government” can be defined as peoples devotion to the nation, or nationalism among people. It started when the British passed the Stamp Act on the United States in 1765 that “required a tax stamp on printed materials. The colonists resented the act and forced their repeal. Then the British parliament passed the Townshend Acts to tax on imported goods. Colonists viewed the Townshend Acts as serious economic and political threats (Briggs & Petersen, 36). Colonists viewed these new taxes as threats to their liberties, including the right to property – the fundamental factor