Sentences with phrase «liberty of citizens»

The government will work toward liberty of its citizens.

Massachusetts and others among the founding thirteen states, while protecting the full religious liberty of citizens under their new constitutions after Independence, maintained an established church and entrusted important moral and educational tasks to church communities with state support, direct or indirect.

Political life must be conducted according to established rules and traditions which condition the liberty of all citizens, including government officials, for the sake of the common welfare.

For them, this egalitarianism promoted by the Welfare State is destructive of the liberty of the citizens and the vitality of abilities, two qualities on which depends the prosperity for all.

It's discriminatory and infringing on the liberties of those citizens around you.

And indeed, it is right to claim that to a considerable extent the democratic rights and liberties of citizens have been subordinated to the interests of political and financial elites.

This must be the real reason why Falana always fall head over heels in defence of the EFCC and Magu, not minding the vicious violations of the constitutionally - guaranteed rights, freedoms, and liberties of citizens.

The liberty of the citizen should not yield before the needs of commerce.

In a time when civil protest and disobedience is ever increasing, it is critical that our democracy protect the privacy and civil liberties of its citizens against government overreach as technology advances.

Not exact matches

Although Paul's filibuster was technically against Brennan's nomination, his remarks focused primarily on civil liberties issues, offering a scathing critique of the Obama's administration's use of unmanned drones, and refusal to rule out military strikes against American citizens on U.S. soil.

When Thomas Jefferson became president, he made the Louisiana Purchase of almost a million square miles in order to advance a citizen - property - holder «empire of liberty.»

Constitutional Amendment 14 (this one specifically applies to Pan's Bill): ``... No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.»

It is appropriate to remind us, as Matthew Spalding did in his 2009 book, We Still Hold These Truths, that the Founders would have expected the «perpetuation of liberty» to «depend on spirited citizens... actively engaged in the democratic task of governing themselves» and «holding to the truths of 1776.»

My last essay ended by noting that conservatives are told by many of their leading politicians and pundits that America's fundamental problem is that too many of their fellow citizens no longer understand its basic principles, of which liberty has pride of place.

- how you can appeal to «religious liberty» to justify denying wedding cakes to gay and lesbian couples without challenging a candidate who wants to increase surveillance of Muslim neighborhoods, create a database of Muslim citizens, and ban Muslims from visiting the U.S., which would suggest the only «religious liberty» you want to protect is your own,

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.

But to remedy the situation the commission recommends measures looking to centralized government control (which would only invite more federal interference and also infringe on the citizens» liberties); for example, development, on the federal level, of a plan for coping with disorder, and the creation of a special police force for suppressing riots.

We Americans flatter ourselves as citizens of a «land of liberty» where religious freedom is sacrosanct.

The orders are also, in the Lutheran view, a school in which all citizens are educated to care for each other, to do their duties even against their egoistic drives, and to use their «liberty and ability to achieve civil righteousness,» as Article XVIII of the Apology of the Augsburg Confession puts it.

On a somewhat deeper but still visible plane the framers saw that the originality of the novus ordo — what made it, in fact, a new order — lay in the unprecedented degree of liberty each citizen possessed to define the course of his or her own «pursuit of happiness.»

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

To these one might add such instances as the constitutional protection of slavery which led some radical abolitionists to repudiate that document; the massive violation of civil liberties during World War I; and the internment of Japanese - American citizens during World War II.

My faith has absolutely nothing to do with my stance on gun control (I don't support infringing on the liberties of law abiding citizens just because some people are scared of guns).

Of course no citizen is completely at liberty to act in any way he pleases, even though his religious convictions require it.

The spheres of political authority are explicitly set forth, and beyond these spheres the citizens are at liberty to decide for themselves.

one must be struck at the constant union of religious ideas with patriotic sentiments, which so strongly characterize the [American] citizens... but what is no less worthy of remark is that their religion, freed from minute ceremonies, resembles a sentiment, as much as their love of liberty resembles a creed.

Those of us who think that, while the role of the polity should be strictly limited, that role includes a responsibility to foster the virtues of active and self - governing citizens and not merely to defend their liberty, will find in Irving Kristol a great and welcome ally.

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

One irony, of course, is this sort of postnational dedication to the common values of liberty and dignity erodes the political institutions required for free citizens actually to govern themselves.

In 1864 Pope Pius IX declared that it was insane to teach that citizens had rights to all kinds of liberty, 4 but in 1963 Pope John XXIII, in his encyclical Pacem in Terris, said:

Let us be mindful that it is not our Muslim fellow citizens who have undermined public morality, assaulted our religious liberty, and attempted to force us to comply with their ideology on pain of being reduced to the status of second - class citizens.

«I deem the present occasion sufficiently important and solemn to justify me in expressing to my fellow - citizens a profound reverence for the Christian religion and a thorough conviction that sound morals, religious liberty, and a just sense of religious responsibility are essentially connected with all true and lasting happiness...»

Instead, somewhat like Pope John Paul, Lincoln demanded that the principles of equality and liberty, the moral truths of human dignity which form the Constitution's foundations, become the «civil religion» of every citizen.

Then, too, regulation that places the government in the position of being easily bribed or influenced by one party is dangerous for the liberties and rights of citizens.

Tubbs has his finger on a central tension in any liberal political order: Because a free society requires morally responsible citizens who won't abuse their liberties, that same society must take serious interest in the development of children.

Just as there are laws within a nation that forbid a person to misuse his liberty, so there should be laws under which the irresponsible use of a nation's powers over its own citizens could be judged; that is to say, the rights of self - determination by the nation should be subordinate to the fundamental rights of man.

Bishop Paulose who was deeply concerned about civil liberties and other fundamental rights of citizens realized that the Emergency was an attempt to crush democracy by an authoritarian regime.

To defend this somewhat surprising claim, Mahoney looks to Solzhenitsyn's personal observations of Switzerland's Appenzell region, whose citizens impressed him with their old «fashioned character and devotion to local liberty.

Catholic citizens have every reason — including the truth of the matter — to argue that our Constitution is much more democratic that our Court now says it is, just as they have every reason to argue that our Framers never meant «liberty» to be used as a wrecking ball deployed against our indispensable relational «intermediary» institutions — beginning with the family and the church.

To my way of thinking, the Whig tradition — and particularly the Catholic Whig tradition — offers the world's best statement of philosophical principles and practical guidelines concerning how and why free citizens should shape new societies worthy of their human rights and ordered liberties.

Anyone who considers themselves a conservative SHOULD be for legalizing marijuana since the prohibition of marijuana and prosecution of marijuana users involves everything conservatives are against: intrusion into private lives of citizens, over arching government control, increased government spending and waste and it goes completely against the idea that every person has «the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.»

Within the span of a decade, same - sex marriage has not only been legally recognized, but its acceptance has been declared an index of one's status as a citizen committed to liberty and justice for all.

For, he argued, «An Act of Congress which deprives a citizen of the United States of his liberty or property merely because he came himself or brought his property into a particular territory of the United States, and who had committed no offense against the laws, could hardly be dignified with the name of due process of law.»

The form in which he originally proposed it was: «The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the citizens of each state all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states and to all persons in the several states equal protection in the rights of life, liberty, and property.»

In 1832 Pope Gregory XVI (followed by Pope Pius IX) declared that it was insane to teach that «the liberty of conscience and of worship is the peculiar right of every man... and that citizens have the right to all kinds of liberty... by which they may be enabled to manifest openly and publicly their ideas, by word of mouth, through the press or by any other means».4 In 1864 Pope Pius IX proceeded to draw up a list of the principal errors of the age which were to be condemned.

Economic liberals argue that the state should not interfere with the economic activities of citizens as this constitutes an impingement on their liberty.

Democratic Republicanism is more critical of capitalism than most social democratic critiques, because it stresses the importance of freedom for citizen participation as vital to creating autonomy and liberty, and the conflict between labour markets and citizenship.

My forthcoming book, Oser la liberté: l'individu comme objectif, le collectif comme moyen («Daring Freedom: the individual as objective, the collective as a means»), further develops an original version of individual liberty as a key concept in articulating the interests of individual citizens from the perspective of progressive change.

Machiavelli fully endorses Livy's assumption that the fundamental question to ask, when thinking about political liberty, is about the distinction between freedom and servitude, and he further agrees that the arbitrary power wielded by the early kings of Rome left the citizen body living as slaves.

With Brexit, British citizens have to be even more vigilant to ensure that their government does not expand its surveillance powers in the name of safety but at the expense of fundamental liberties.