The Block Billionaires from buying elections act is unconstitutional because it restricts the right to freedom of expression.
The right to freedom of expression is a right that guarantees people to express themselves through:
- Ideas
- Thoughts
- Words
- Images
- Symbols
- Events
In a political campaign, candidates express through advertising and their campaigns the idea that they are the best option for the voters. Therefore, they are making use of their right to free expression.
If the court endorses this law that restricts candidates to use more than $999,999 in their political campaigns, it would be limiting the right to free expression because at that time the candidate expresses himself through his campaign.
Learn more in: brainly.com/question/10673570
<span>The US patriot act violates the civil liberties of the American people by giving the government opportunity and rights to treat citizens in many undignified and uncouth ways. It changed the nations ranking from one of the most free countries in the world, to somewhere in the 40th percentile. The bill allows for too broad of a scope of power to federal authorities, violating the rights to privacy among many other civil rights. Because of this I feel the War on Terrorism has greatly overstepped appropriate boundaries of civil liberties, and human rights. I am not sure how they should go about reconciling this issue, but as sure as they should, its likely they won't because government enjoys having more power than the people.</span>
Well as improving our existing capabilities. There are also private companies currently developing craft and systems for retrieval of space trash, asteroid mining and space tourism. Is a really exciting time for space exploration and related technology.
Answer:
C.S. Lewis states that moral law is not a simply convention . He says "there are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — [...].The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality."
Then the Law of Human Nature is compared as a standard or universal truth: "he moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others."
Reference: Lewis, C.S. “Some Objections .” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 1952
