Sentences with phrase «rights argument for»

Wasn't that the civil rights argument for Common Core and high - stakes testing?

I too sensed that «In drinking from the discourse of reform critics, Ravitch has become as uncritical of these views as she once was of center - right arguments for choice and accountability» and that there were occasions of «confectionary reasoning» that are out of character with her previous work, but given the point of the book, I'd cut her some slack on these matters.

Noting that «there is no reason why the fact that the applicant has a private interest in the outcome should be fatal, provided that the public interest test is satisfied», Jackson LJ's initial report identifies the apparent contradiction between the «no private interest» test and the requirement in claims involving human rights arguments for the claimant to have been «personally or directly affected» by the violation.

Not exact matches

But I've yet to see a really robust version of that argument, let alone an explanation of why firing makes more sense, ethically, that this punishment alone is the right one, ethically, than all those other outcomes, or — for those who believe this is true — why he deserves everything on the menu.

«Be truthful and use previous experience to make the argument as to why you're the right fit for the role,» she says.

«There would be valid accounting arguments for the costs of relinquishing that «right» as well.

The argument was the first in a term that holds the prospect for major rulings about affirmative action, gay marriage and voting rights.

Neither argument holds right now for holding any tactical cash, especially with no reasonable prospects for a near - term rate increase and the yield differential offered by bonds over cash right now.

On pp. 19 - 21, Michael McCullough explores Warren Buffett's argument for why wealthy Americans like him should pay more taxes — which raises fundamental questions about distributive justice, freedom, and property rights.

Harper even drew on Canadian John Humphry's drafting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as an argument for militarizing Canadian foreign policy.

You can find, or pay for, forecasts to substantiate almost any investment thesis, so this is probably the weakest argument to not purchase gold right now.

On the day of the third presidential debate between Trump and Clinton, Trump's team tested 175,000 different ad variations for his arguments, in order to find the right versions above all via Facebook.

... The argument that gun control allowed the rise of Hitler has circulated among gun - rights advocates for several years.

This line of argument arrives at the right conclusion for the wrong reasons.

Scalia, attorney for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the lead plaintiff, opened with a smooth presentation outlining familiar arguments: the DOL lacks the authority to regulate advisors, acted in an «arbitrary and capricious» manner, and violated plaintiffs» First Amendment rights.

She has also been a strong voice for cooperation among progressive parties rather than for continued competition that mainly serves the interests of the Right (yes, yes, I know the argument that having many choices on your ballot is supposed to be a good thing, but the outcomes of Alberta elections suggest that in fact for progressives, it's just the opposite).

You might decide that this is just an arbitrary, round figure, that is only roughly right for you, and in fact there is just as good an argument for 15 % or 25 %.

The usual arguments from the far right («we can not afford this,» they say, or «if you pay people for not working, people won't work») join with those on the far left («this is just a way to reduce pressures on the minimum wage or cut back all the other programmes that are vital») are mutually reinforcing, even though they're largely inaccurate.

Jacoby's occasion for recycling this tired truism is David Gelernter's new book, America - Lite: How Imperial Academia Dismantled Our Culture (and Ushered in the Obamacrats), which he thinks is short on arguments and full of shrill right - wing clichés about tenured radicals and rootless intellectuals.

That's right... you have no response for Just Say'In's argument.

When this happens the argument turns into name - calling, accusations, dredging up past hurts and twisting the other person's words — all for the sake of being right.

A thorough review of the arguments for and against abstinence programs in Uganda specifically is available on the Human Rights Watch website.

My argument in a nutshell: many of the people who argue for such a right don't simply mean a right to be free from others» interference; they mean subsidized....

Regardless, it's not as nice to have the frame of a well made argument dismissed as irrelevant when I didn't quote scripture or say I'd pray for you, right?

(This is organizationally verified by United Methodist agencies» maintaining membership in the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice [RCRC], a political lobby that defends and advances all abortion rights, and that opposes all moral arguments, political moves, and legal decisions against abortion.

It is a tragic error that those of us who make the «self - help» argument in internal dialogue concerning alternative - development strategies for black Americans are often construed by the political right as making a public argument for a policy of «benign neglect.»

The arguments here are, for the most part, human beings who want to be right, right in their own belief of God, Church, Religion, or Non-Believers of any or all of the above.

Pete is right that the powerful argument against the 9 -9-9 plan is that it would be a big tax increase for the middle middle - class, those Americans who often didn't go to college and whose lives are becoming increasingly precarious and pathological.

The ruling disagreed with the plaintiffs» argument that a woman therefore had a right to have an abortion any time and for any reason.

We are not likely to win this battle for basic human rights using the argument that the bible has no value.

But for all that it gets right, the piece contains one line of argument that Christians should be on guard against.

Tenderness separated from the source of tenderness thus supports a «popular piety» that goes unexamined, a piety in which liberalism in its decline establishes dogmatic rights, rights that in an extreme» as presently in the arguments for abortion in the political sphere and for «popular culture» in the academic» become absolute dogma to be accepted and not examined.

My argument has its best chance if Augustine and Aquinas were right about the reasons for creation.

For arguments sake, we'll say this guy was just a bad seed right from the start.

«I was attacking the argument that gay people must be discriminated against — and anti-bullying programs that address anti-gay bullying should be blocked (or exceptions should be made for bullying «motivated by faith»)-- because it says right there in the Bible that being gay is wrong.»

Though he verbally defended the old New England idea, it is interesting that he defended it more on the basis of reason and human rights than on the basis of Scripture, and this defense of congregational independence later provided arguments for advocates of the revolution against England.

Yup, same arguments, different day, it's shows how brainwashed the christians are, but when fighting for civil rights it always takes time.

the argument of the «right magic words» for salvation.

Many of its arguments to this effect are derived from human rights «data,» which the Administration has used in turn to justify its support for the contra rebels... [W] e find the Administration's approach to Nicaragua deceptive and harmful....

If you mean that when we state our stance on something we are in danger of offending, then for sure offense is okay, it is when we build into our argument accusation of the motives of others right alongside our belief that we cease to operate in the spirit of Christ

John Warwick Montgomery, a lawyer and philosopher as well as theologian, provides perhaps the most comprehensive argument by a conservative in his recent book Human Rights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significantRights and Human Dignity: An Apologetic for the Transcendent Perspective (Zondervan, 1986) He concludes that rights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significantrights derived from the inerrant teachings of the Bible give authority to the rights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significantrights set forth in the Universal Declaration, even exceeding its claims in significant ways.

One political position customary among Jews, and often shared also among the more observant, is that of not interfering in the choices of freedom that the state makes for its citizens, reserving only to the individual conscience the right and duty of making rigorous personals choices on arguments in which the law of the state makes room for autonomy and freedom.

Instead, I will assume that the case for neoclassical metaphysics can otherwise be made and attempt programmatically to show that the comprehensive purpose it formulates grounds justice as compound, grounds a substantive principle of justice that consistently implies the formative human rights of communicative respect.7 Toward the conclusion of this argument, I will also seek to identify an inclusive human right that is substantive in character.

Nowhere does he set forth the argument of the book, and on natural rights jurisprudence generally, he uses Arkes as a kind of foil for his own reservations — again, without ever delineating Arkes» position.

Some may propose, however, that a convincing argument for communicative rights achieves too much because it contradicts the assertion that moral theory requires such a telos.

Built right into the religion of Christianity is the insane capability for an individual to take any side of any argument and support it with some from their precious Bible.

He finds these values as well in the handiwork of «insurrectionists» from Daniel Shays to John Brown to Timothy McVeigh, and in the arguments of neo-republican legal scholars such as Amar, Sanford Levinson and David Williams, who find a mandate for revolutionary resistance to oppressive government in the Second Amendment right to bear arms.

First, the Religious Coalition for Abortion Rights has been making free exercise arguments for abortion for twenty years, and these claims were routinely rejected even by pro-choice courts, even before Smith.

Ok, let's say for the sake of argument: everyone is right.

The big bang does not state that something comes from nothing, and the rest of your argument is ludicrous.This is why Bill Nye is right - a lack of scientific understanding results in a nation full of ignorance and lack of critical thinking; not good for a nation that is basically making money by being on the cutting edge of technology.