Sentences with phrase «liberties of individuals»

«Individuals may say or do what they please, provided they do not transgress the substantive law, or infringe the legal rights of others... public authorities (including the Crown) may do nothing but what they are authorised to do by some rule of the common law (including the royal prerogative) or statute, and in particular they may not interfere with the liberties of individuals without statutory authority.»

Mosaic Community Services 2015 Visionary Award in recognition of Andy's «faithful and relentless» advocacy on behalf of the civil liberties of individuals with mental illness.

The Orwellian provisions proposed by ACTA of mandatory network - level filtering by ISPs will have a considerable impact upon the civil liberties of individuals and may well be incompatible with human rights legislation.

«I think we should make sure whatever we do is done with careful deliberation so that we understand the rights and liberties of individuals with public safety.»

There are not only potential economic costs to political redistribution; there are costs in terms of democracy and in terms of the liberties of individuals, as well.

The majority is subject to the law of right, which includes the rights of minorities and the liberties of individuals.

If they can't conform to standards of equality and non-discrimination, or respecting the liberties of an individual, then I don't want them... we don't need NCOs or Officers or leaders in our armed forces to continue to disgrace the uniform.

Virtually every law is coercive, and care must be taken not to violate the religious liberties of individual citizens.

From what has been said thus far, it is obvious that the liberty of individuals to pursue private good is the major moral concern of the new reformers and for this reason their ethical views can fairly be seen as a variety of the contractarian social ethic now increasingly characteristic of political society.

Pagels is a liberal democrat who stresses the liberty of the individual vis - à - vis the state.

Arising from the court's interpretation of the amendment were new judicial powers that tended to absolutize the liberty of the individual.

If the left insists on the liberal interpretation of our constitutional and political institutions in an uncompromising effort to defend the ever - expanding role of the state to secure the practical liberty of individuals, the right defends the free - market system and uncompromisingly rejects any restraint on the unfettered economic choices of individuals.

At the same time, the Free Exercise Clause safeguards the religious liberty of individuals, imposing a ban on coercion or discrimination by government.

For «many citizens who do not share these religious views hold such a compulsory rite to infringe constitutional liberty of the individual.»

The negative goals liberals pursue can be summarized under the heading of the avoidance of evil: to protect the liberty of individuals from «dictatorship, torture, poverty, intolerance, repression, discrimination, lawlessness,» and other affronts to human dignity.

8) Civil Liberties Which should take priority under the law: the civil liberties of the individual, or the right of the state to maintain its own security?

Some have expressed doubts about legislation on the grounds that it would encroach on the liberty of an individual to do as they please in a private car.

When will the Secretary of State start recognising the liberties of the individual, and stop regarding everyone in the country as a suspect?

But the conversion of the excellent report of the Sole Judgment Debt Commissioner into a political White Paper for electioneering purposes to be published under the supervision of the office of the Attorney - General demonstrates how low we have come in this country in terms of the only constitutionally established office within the executive branch which by hallowed tradition and practice is to defend and uphold the liberty of every individual and the rule of law in its quasi-judicial decision making process.

The British way is that every measure we take to enhance security is complimented by additional protections against any arbitrary treatment and in defence of the liberties of the individual.

Justice Aboagye Tandoh said the liberty of some individuals could be curtailed for their own protection as well as the community's.

By titling the series Habeas Corpus (which refers to a judicial normative that guarantees the liberty of every individual, preventing «arbitrary» detentions), Fonseca further addressed the disappearances and imprisonments committed by the regime.

While the government was at pains to emphasise during the passage of the Bill that the stated aim of these orders was the prevention of crime, not the punishment of suspected criminals, it is clear from the wording of SCA 2007 that these orders potentially represent a significant incursion into the liberty of the individual.

An arrest is the act of depriving the liberty of an individual by taking the individual into custody, holding or detaining the individual to answer a criminal charge, or preventing the individual from performing a criminal offense.

Not exact matches

you can also fill the airwaves of all these surrounding nations with disruptive ideas / propaganda like freedom of the press, individual liberty, economic opportunity, etc. — dangerous ideas to the surrounding kleptocracies / oligarchies.

Where the power of those instruments needs to be limited, as it surely sometimes does, it can not be done by pulling the rug out from under individual, human liberties.

In general, economists believe in the power of free markets and individual liberty, and, as such, are opposed to outlawing goods and services unless such a policy is justified based on costs to outside parties (i.e. negative externalities).

The elder Buffett fought against FDR's social programs and warned that expansion of government eroded individual liberty.

He is a senior scholar at the school's conservative Mercatus Center, and has ties to the Goldwater Institute, a libertarian think tank, and the Competitive Enterprise Institute, which is «dedicated to advancing the principles of limited government, free enterprise, and individual liberty.»

Therefore, it is increasingly likely that the EU will become more totalitarian and try to push further centralization and restriction of civil and individual liberties.

In other words, his proposal, if it could be executed at all, would produce an individual capable of using liberty well and responsibly, inevitably embedded in a society in which most people would be sorely tempted to abuse their liberty.

Here's what our anti-statist libertarian purists say in their most reasonable mode: We're going to have climate change and few babies; those are examples of the collateral damage of a society dedicated to individual liberty.

Well, we read that very prominent Republican donors play fast and loose when it comes to environmental regulations, and one reason they fund Republicans is to get those regulations to disappear in the name of individual liberty.

Mary Ann Glendon asks us to consider «what a set of legal arrangements that places individual liberty or mere lifestyle over innocent life says about, and may do to, the people and the society that produces them.»

This would assume an «imaginative,» not a historical, disposition: a divine intent in history, God - gifted immutable laws of morality, to which man has a duty to conform; order as a first requirement of good governance, achieved best by a restraint and respect for custom and tradition; variety as more desirable than systematic uniformity and liberty more desirable than equality; the honor and duty of a good life in a good community as taking precedence over individual desire; an embrace of a skepticism toward reason and abstract principle.

So for me, I am going to consider the driving force of one's decisions, and if it is a faith, then so be it because I love our country and I am proud of the individuals (forefathers) who had the insight to form «one nation under God with liberty and justice for all.»

Again, I agree there have been clear examples of erosion of individual liberty, but on the whole, the trend appears to be more of an expansion rather than an erosion of individual liberties within the time frame you referenced.

George Will argues that American politics is divided between conservatives, «who take their bearings from the individual's right to a capacious, indeed indefinite, realm of freedom» and progressives «whose fundamental value is the right of the majority to have its way in making rules about which specified liberties shall be respected.»

It is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the individual, created in God's image, from those who would rob him or her of these things.

It also prevents a majority from easily taking away the rights of minorities for it's third primary function of protecting individual liberties of American citizens, whether they belong to a majority or a minority we are to be equal under the law.

Three of the terms used most frequently in Catholic social thought» and now, more generally, in much secular discourse» are social justice, the common good, and personal (or individual) liberty.

If we are to build a world of liberty, equality and fraternity, then believers and non-believers must feel free to be just that, equal in their right to live as individuals and in community in accord with their convictions; and fraternal in their relations with one another.

This rhetoric of individual liberty, however, is belied by the bill's disregard for the conscience rights of Canadians.

On judgment day, I don't want to try to rationalize why I voted for a cult member who caused souls to be damned, by feebly explaining that I was more concerned about repealing Obamacare, preventing a redistribution of wealth, preventing abortion (those lives are in heaven), preventing gay marriage, and restoring individual liberties.

Over at No Left Turns, Peter Lawler reminds us that part of the problem with an unrestrained judicial activism is precisely its championing of the ever expanding rights of the Lockean individual — the essential premise of Texas v. Lawrence is that the word «liberty» as used in the Fourteenth Amendment is an indeterminate concept meant to be expanded indefinitely by the Supreme Court.

Within that sphere of liberty the individual has the freedom to express any opinion, to develop any tastes, to live life in his own way — a political philosophy which found its way, through Jefferson and others, into our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

He does not accept that the real greater good comes from the efforts of individuals exercising their freedom and that government exists principally to enable them to pursue their inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Because the individual human subject» Leff's godlet» is the modernist starting point, it seems reasonable to place a heavy burden of justification upon anyone who seeks to restrain the liberty of that subject.

In the forthcoming Victories of Reason, Stark will attribute to Christian rationality and advocacy nothing less than the emergence of capitalism (pioneered by medieval monks, not industrious Protestants) and the foundational principles of equality and individual liberty that informed that most conspicuous Western achievement of all: modern republican democracy.

The first principle, ordered liberty, stands in stark contrast to the contemporary notion of unfettered liberty that finds its basis in the putatively absolute nature of individual «rights.»