Summary Of The Letter From Birmingham Jail Essays - Free Essays

Summary Of The Letter From Birmingham Jail Essays - Free Essays Summary Of The Letter From Birmingham Jail On Good Friday in 1963, 53 blacks, led by Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., marched into downtown Birmingham to protest the existing segregation laws. All were arrested. This caused the clergymen of this Southern town to compose a letter appealing to the black population to stop their demonstrations. This letter appeared in the Birmingham Newspaper. In response, Martin Luther King drafted a document that would mark the turning point of the Civil Rights movement and provide enduring inspiration to the struggle for racial equality. Martin Luther King's Letter from Birmingham Jail strives to justify the desperate need for nonviolent direct action, the absolute immorality of unjust laws together with what a just law is, as well as, the increasing probability of the Negro resorting to extreme disorder and bloodshed, in addition to his utter disappointment with the Church who, in his opinion, had not lived up to their responsibilities as people of God. King's justification to the eight clergymen for protesting segregation begins with a profound explanation of their actions, Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. The actions of the African American people are overdue and very well planned as King had explained in the letter. Their quest was to force the white politicians to negotiate and actually heed the requests for desegregation. As King explains, past promises have been broken by the politicians and merchants of Birmingham and now is the time to fulfill the natural right of all people to be treated equal. Violence is not what King wants, he simply wants unjust laws to change and the Supreme Courts 1954 ruling to be upheld. Secondly, Kings answer to the clergymen's assertion that breaking the law is not the way to achieve the results the African American is looking for. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that, an unjust law is no law at all. King does not feel that they have broken the law, his definitive answer to the clergymen is that a law that is not morally sound is not a law. Laws are made to protect the people not degrade and punish. As far as King is concerned, the African American will continue to do whatever is necessary, preferably non-violently, to obtain the legal and moral right that is theirs. If they are not allowed this peaceful expression of the needs they so desire, it could lead to a much uglier action. Dr. King expressed his concern that if something is not done with these feelings and absolute needs of the African American there will be violence and mayhem. The Negro has many pent-up resentments and latent frustrations, and he must release them. So let him March. History has shown that if a person or people are ignored they will become violent and fight for their God-given rights. King diligently explained that black nationalist groups are becoming prevalent in society and he has faith that the Negro Church has had direct influence in keeping the violence from erupting. However, how can they are expected to stay complacent? Finally, the sheer frustration King felt was with the Church in general. In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church. There can be no deep disappointment where there in not deep love. This is probably the most heartbreaking assertion King makes. He feels that the Church has skirted its responsibilities to the African American people, hiding behind anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows. King summarizes his letter by making the point that he hopes that the Church will see it's responsibilities it's means it is/you need its as people of God and understand the need for direct action, the justification of unjust laws and the impending danger of the African American rising up in violence if they are not heard. Martin Luther King does this all in a diplomatic, heartfelt and completely inoffensive voice.

Line Item Veto and Why Presidents Still Cannot Do It

Line Item Veto and Why Presidents Still Cannot Do It In the United States government, the line-item veto is the right of the chief executive to nullify or cancel individual provisions bills- usually budget appropriations bills- without vetoing the entire bill. Like regular vetoes, line-item vetoes are usually subject to the possibility of being overridden by the legislative body. While many state governors have line-item veto power, the President of the United States does not. The line item veto is exactly what you might do when your grocery tab runs to $20.00, but you only have $15.00 on you. Instead of adding to your total debt by paying with a credit card, you put back $5.00 worth of items you don’t really need. The line item veto - the power to not buy unneeded items - is a power U.S. presidents have long wanted but have just as long been denied. The line-item veto, sometimes called the partial veto, is a type of veto that would give the President of the United States the power to cancel an individual provision or provisions - line-items - in spending, or appropriations bills, without vetoing the entire bill. Like traditional presidential vetoes, a line-item veto could be overridden by Congress. Line Item Veto Pros and Cons Proponents of the line-item veto argue that it would allow the president to cut wasteful pork barrel or earmark spending from the federal budget.Opponents argue that it would continue a trend of increasing the power of the executive branch of government at the expense of the legislative branch. Opponents also argue, and the Supreme Court has agreed, that the line-item veto is unconstitutional. In addition, they say it would not reduce wasteful spending and could even make it worse. History of the Line-Item Veto Virtually every president since Ulysses S. Grant has asked Congress for line-veto power. President Clinton actually got but did not keep it long.On April 9, 1996, former President Bill Clinton signed the 1996 Line Item Veto Act, which had been championed through Congress by Senators Bob Dole (R-Kansas), and John McCain (R-Arizona), with the support of several Democrats. On August 11, 1997, President Clinton used the line-item veto for the first time to cut three measures from an expansive spending and taxation bill. At the bills signing ceremony, Clinton declared the selective veto a cost-cutting breakthrough and a victory over Washington lobbyists and special interest groups. From now on, presidents will be able to say no to wasteful spending or tax loopholes, even as they say yes to vital legislation, said President Clinton. But, from now on wasnt for long at all. Clinton used the line-item veto two more times in 1997, cutting one measure from the Balanced Budget Act of 1997 and two provisions of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997. Almost immediately, groups aggrieved by the action, including the City of New York, challenged the line-item veto law in court. On February 12, 1998, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia declared the 1996 Line Item Veto Act unconstitutional, and the Clinton administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court. In a 6-3 ruling issued on June 25, 1998, the Supreme Court, in the case of Clinton v. City of New York upheld the District Courts decision, overturning the 1996 Line Item Veto Act as a violation of the Presentment Clause, (Article I, Section 7), of the U.S. Constitution. By the time the Supreme Court took the power away from him, President Clinton has used the line-item veto to cut 82 items from 11 spending bills. While Congress overrode 38 of Clintons line-item vetoes, the Congressional Budget Office estimated the 44 line-item vetoes that stood saved the government almost $2 billion. Why is the Line-Item Veto Unconstitutional? The Constitutions Presentment Clause cited by the Supreme Court spells out the basic legislative process by declaring that any bill, before being presented to the president for his or her signature, must have been passed by both the Senate and the House. In using the line-item veto to delete individual measures, the president is actually amending bills, a legislative power granted exclusively to Congress by the Constitution. In the courts majority opinion, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: there is no provision in the Constitution that authorizes the president to enact, to amend or to repeal statutes. The court also held that the line-item veto violated the principles of the separation of powers between the legislative, executive and judicial branches of the federal government. In his concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote that the undeniable effects of the line-item veto were to enhance the Presidents power to reward one group and punish another, to help one set of taxpayers and hurt another, to favor one State and ignore another. Congressmen and Senators Object to Line-Item Veto Historically, most members of the U.S. Congress have opposed a constitutional amendment granting the president a permanent line-item veto. Lawmakers rightfully fear the power would enable the president to veto their earmark or â€Å"pork barrel† projects they have traditionally added to the appropriations bills of the annual federal budget. In this manner, the president could use the line-item veto to punish members of Congress who have opposed his or her policy, thus bypassing the separation of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches of the federal government.