What circumstance or event is Dr. King responding to in this letter? *
I was reminded recently of a post I published – when I was all the same studying law – about just and unjust laws based on Dr. Martin Luther King's "alphabetic character from Birmingham Jail". I idea that some of yous might find it an interesting read as well, so I volition republish information technology here.
In his "letter from Birmingham jail" Martin Luther Rex jr. writes nigh something he calls 'merely' and 'unjust' laws. He makes a clear distinction between both of them.
In his words: "A merely constabulary is a man fabricated code that squares with the moral law or the police of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law."
He makes a distinction, that shares close resemblance to the philosophy of the Romans during their empire, they made a clear stardom between:
* Ius Gentium
* Ius Naturalis
Ius Gentium is 'ius' or 'law' that is universally practiced. For instance: When someone buys a sure product, one has got to pay for information technology, stealing is not allowed, nor is murder. In the time of the Romans, however, slavery was universally used and accepted every bit well.
Ius Naturalis means 'natural law' or 'moral police' (run into resemblance with dr. Rex: exact same give-and-take). Certain things could fall under the Ius Gentium only not nether Ius Naturalis. The best way of explaining the difference is slavery: Although slavery was universally used in their time (thus it was Ius Gentium), the Romans themselves condidered it in alienation with Ius Naturalis or moral law.
Dr. Martin Luther Male monarch goes further to explain the departure between a simply and an unjust law:
"Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Whatever police force that degrades human personality is unjust."
In the Roman empire they lived, mostly, by the Ius Gentium: Although they recognized that Ius Gentium was in breach, now then, with Ius Naturalis.
Dr. Martin Luther King jr. notwithstanding thinks unlike. He wrote in his letter:
"One has not only a legal simply a moral responsibleness to obey just laws. Conversely i has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
He is using the example of certain Nazi laws. The Nazis occupied my country (The Netherlands) every bit well equally many other countries. They made and enforced terrible laws hither. For instance: It was illegal to hide Jews in one'due south dwelling from the Nazis. Merely, if one hid a Jew dispite information technology being illegal, one saved a life: Jews that would get caught would be send to and imprisoned in camps. Mostly, of class, death camps.
This law is an example dr. King uses in his alphabetic character from Birmingham jail likewise.
A law such as that is an unjust constabulary he explains. For unlike reasons: It downgrades the individual, information technology makes a distinction between dissimilar 'groups' of people andsoforth. Thus; he condidered it to be the moral responsibleness of people living in Nazi occupied countries during the second world state of war to ignore whatever laws similar it.
Personally I concord with his unabridged letter of the alphabet. I also believe we have all got certain 'natural rights'. In other words, to me there exists something similar a 'moral police' or a 'Godly police'. His explanation of what is just and what is unjust are exactly the same every bit my ideas nigh them.
Hence: personally I agree with him: This also means I personally agree that we accept the moral responsibility to disobey whatever unjust, just unmoral law.
Just as a law student I can non assistance but to inquire sure questions:
* Can we beget such an attitude as police force studetns, lawyers, judges, andsoforth?
* Should it not be so that a judge decides what laws are but and what laws are unjust?
* And should information technology not exist politically and legally highly hypocritical if we did not give the same authorisation to people with a different interpretation of 'just' and 'unjust'? If we accept the authority to determine what laws are just and what laws are unjust and by doing so disobeying sure laws, should non people with a different definition take that 'right' as well? If we would reason like that, would nosotros not be opening the door to fascists to interruption laws they regard as 'unjust'?
* Does this not polute and destroy our entire democratic / legal system?
I believe, like dr. Male monarch, that all of us have got certain unalienable rights. Rights that are detracted from 'moral police force' or the 'Law of God'. Merely I likewise believe citizens have got the duty in a constitutional autonomous society to obey the laws of the country. When we, for instance, were occupied by the Germans, constitutional democracy was destroyed: Considering this type of commonwealth was destroyed I believe every citizen in Kingdom of the netherlands had the moral responsibility to fight against the Germans every mode they peradventure could.
But in a ramble autonomous land the state of affairs is dissimilar. I believe that in a democratic social club judges should decide what is just and what is unjust – better said; in our western constitutional democracies we have all got certain Constitutional rights and / or Human Rights. Our Constitutions are every bit close equally we tin get to codifying the moral, natural or Godly law in my opinion. In other words: If a law is unjust a judge should declare it so.
Likewise: The 'people' or maybe I should say the bulk decide what laws are 'just' and what laws are 'unjust'. If a denizen disagrees with the existence of a certain law there are dissimilar means of fighting that law legally. One could concord rallies against its beingness, one could file petitions against its existence, one could run 'for function', the list continues.
In other words: In a constitutional democratic system, are there not enough legal means of fighting an unjust police?
Well; yes. There are many ways of fighting them in our Western constitutional democratic societies but democracy also only means the majority rules. In other words: The majority decides about what laws come to existence. Well: If the majority wants to make a law that is 'unjust' that law will probably pass, in the U.s. for instance, Congress, but… it volition not pass the Supreme Courtroom. The Supreme Courts tests laws on the Constitution: are they constitutional? Similar I explained; our Western Constitutions are equally close as we tin get to codifying moral police. Therefore; they are not only testing a law on its constitutionality, but besides on its morality.
This would be the normal way of 'checks and balances'.
But, in the time of Martin Luther King jr. (especially before that time though) the Supreme Court did non fully fulfil its duties. It did not fulfil its responsibility. The laws, for case, that were in favor of segregation were clearly unconstitutional and thus unmoral and thus unjust. Nevertheless; segregation existed for decades and decades.
In other words: In this constitutional democracy every branch who should defend the 'constitutional' role of the expression failed in the responsibility.
To have this fifty-fifty further; the 'ramble' part of 'ramble republic' did not exist. It was a commonwealth, but no a constitutional 1.
This post is getting fashion too long, so I will skip certain steps in the thinking process: One has got the duty to obey every law in a constitutional democracy, but when the constitutional part is taken out of it, or even the 'democracy' part of it every bit well, this duty does not exist anymore. Really; in a society that is not a ramble democracy anymore 1 has got the duty, or the responsibleness as dr. Martin Luther King jr. calls it to re-install the constitutional function of a 'constitutional democracy'.
What does this mean for me, other law students and those who piece of work with / for the police? This simply means we should fight every unjust law legally at first. When a law is made that is unjust, thus unconstitutional, we should fight it: politically and legally; legally pregnant in the courtroom.
In one case that does not succeed, thus once every branch acts in alienation of the Constitution, thus unjust, thus unmoral, it can merely mean the constitutional role of a 'constitutional republic' is under assail, or does not exist anymore. At that moment we, non just the 'average citizen' but legal scholars andsoforth equally well, take the responsibility to disobey these unjust / unmoral laws any manner we can.
I do non know whether this point of view makes me an outcast, so to speak, in legal circles. What I practise know withal, is that if I live like this, I will be protecting our Constitution, I will be defending (our) justice (system) and that I will always have a skillful and healthy conscience. Is not that what life is all about?
And if you lot all agree with this, what does this mean in the nowadays day? What are the consequences of it now?
arbucklepironerts.blogspot.com
Source: https://themoderatevoice.com/just-and-unjust-laws-according-to-dr-martin-luther-king-jr/
0 Response to "What circumstance or event is Dr. King responding to in this letter? *"
Post a Comment