In the United States of America, the legal battle over civil rights is ongoing and has resulted in violent and impactful movements that have had and continue to have a considerable impact on our country. From the days of slavery to today's mass incarceration to the Jim Crow South, numerous laws have both strengthened and reduced the civil rights of America's most vulnerable people. Although this is a very controversial topic with widely held opinions, many different legal perspectives can be applied to this topic, including natural law, legal positivism, and utilitarianism. When it comes to natural law, which views “law as a set of universal principles applicable to all societies in all historical eras,” one could interpret civil rights as those universal principles that all societies should enjoy. Say no to plagiarism. Get a custom essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayIn his “Letters from Birmingham Jail,” Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. quotes St. Thomas Aquinas stating that “An unjust law is one that is not rooted in eternal and natural law.” Dr. King goes on to argue that the segregation laws in effect at the time were unjust because they “distort the soul and harm the character” and are “morally wrong and sinful.” At the time of writing these letters, in August 1963, the American civil rights movement was in full swing, and states like Alabama had enacted segregation laws that designated African-American citizens as second-class citizens. Dr. King argues that this is unfair or unnatural because in this case the Alabama legislature, the majority, enacted these laws without giving African Americans, the minority, any say, as several tactics were in place to prevent them from voting. Additionally, St. Thomas Aquinas declared that laws consistent with natural law are "just because they serve the good of mankind", thus denying African Americans basic civil rights to vote, attend the same schools as white Americans, to own a home, to sit wherever they want in a bus/restaurant, they are not serving the good of humanity by denying these rights to a portion of the human race. Also regarding natural law, Aquinas describes unjust laws as those that "unjustly impose a burden on some members of society", which directly applies to the civil rights movement because the segregation laws in place impose major burdens on African Americans by not giving them a say in their decision. government, the right to accumulate wealth or the right to fair treatment in establishments. The challenge with natural law relating to civil rights is that one could argue that civil rights do not constitute "universal principles applicable to all societies" to justify segregation laws or laws that treat any group of people as second-class citizens. With different cultures, religions and mores across the world, the idea of ​​basic human rights and civil rights has always been a conflicting issue, resulting in different levels of freedom across the globe. The civil rights movement can be linked to the U.S. Constitution. and the Bill of Rights as legal documents to support their cause. Applying natural law theory, one could argue that in the United States, the U.S. Constitution reflects the principles of natural law applicable toAmerican society. Throughout the civil rights movements, demonstrators participated in marches, sit-ins, and various nonviolent practices to protest discriminatory laws, actions that many believe the First Amendment protects since it protects Americans against freedom of speech, the right to peacefully protest, and the right to ask the government to address one's grievances. By inflicting violence on these protesters throughout history and denying them their First Amendment rights, one could argue that this is a direct violation of natural law. One particular landmark event that comes to mind regarding this violation of the First Amendment is the Selma March event where African Americans were met with brutal force during a peaceful march for their voting rights in Selma in Montgomery. About this event, in the text, Cicero refers to the principles of natural law such as avoiding harm to others, the right to self-defense and to protect others from harm. By imposing and authorizing this brutal violence against African Americans, police and legislators are violating this principle of natural law by harming and endangering the African American community and denying them any right to defend themselves. Unfortunately, this type of violation of natural rights still occurs today in modern society. As for Standing Rock, peaceful Dakota Access pipeline protesters were met with bullets, guns, chemicals, and arrest. This is another direct violation of the First Amendment of our Constitution and may be considered unjust or unnatural because, once again, the protesters, the minority were forced to accept this pipeline by the powerful majority , despite the risk that the pipeline would harm their protected lands, particularly their water source. Melissa Helmann, the author of “What Standing Rock Tells Us About Civil Disobedience,” highlighted some powerful quotes that sum up this problem: “It is sometimes very difficult to determine where First Amendment protections stand and where they have been diminished. ” and “civil disobedience has been diminished.” was also an integral part of the fight for indigenous rights.” These quotes are very powerful because natural law proponents might argue that if you have freedoms like we have in the United States, essentially universal principles, the government cannot determine in which scenario those freedoms are appropriate. . By denying protesters their First Amendment rights, they are creating a double standard by allowing a violation of laws when it furthers their cause or argument. In the case of Standing Rock, those in power wanted the pipeline built and chose to deny protesters the First Amendment to help promote construction of the pipeline. Helmann also highlights the challenge posed by this principle in his article by stating that there is insufficient oversight over the actions of law enforcement in this case; However, when you have a disadvantaged minority group of people like the Sioux, who have very little to no power in our legal system, how can positive change occur regarding these unjust principles? The civil rights movement is directly linked to the idea of ​​law as well as positivism. Legal positivism means "the law as stated or posited", essentially that laws should always be obeyed if properly promulgated according to established procedures, despite any immoral consequences of the law. According toThis principle, the protest against segregation laws in the South directly violates the idea of ​​legal positivism because at the time, these segregation laws were passed according to established procedures, even if these procedures were unjust and undemocratic. The biggest challenge regarding legal positivism in the case of civil rights is that no major social change or movement has ever occurred in the United States because people stood by and obeyed the laws. Major change has happened by protesting and marching to form a powerful movement that accomplishes this change. Regarding respect for laws, John Austin argued that stating that certain laws should not be tolerated can lead to anarchy in society, which obviously has some validity in certain contexts. . For example, if everyone decided to disregard traffic laws, car accidents, injuries, and deaths would increase and could lead to massive political disorder and anarchy. I think one of the biggest challenges of legal positivism is that obviously many laws in our society, like the traffic laws that I mentioned, can greatly benefit society and increase safety across the country , so stating that these laws should not be tolerated is very dangerous; However, this same mentality cannot be applied to the entire board. I would argue that there is a gap in Austin's philosophy because the legal system is supposed to be objective and protect all citizens of a society. So, when laws are in place that endanger and harm the lives of citizens, why should society accept these laws? Another problem I have with legal positivism regarding civil rights is the statement that the following laws "enacted in accordance with established procedures shall be followed" because often these promulgated procedures are not democratic in their essence, they are often established by the powerful majority. . Regarding the segregationist laws of the South, at the time the established procedures gave African Americans virtually no say since they could not vote, so how is it fair to force them to accept a law when They had absolutely no say? Similarly, with respect to this argument, another problem regarding legal positivism and civil rights is the idea that laws "must be respected until changed or modified." As I mentioned above, African Americans in the South had virtually no voting power, so unless they disobeyed these laws through civil disobedience, then these laws might not have had -never be changed. Once again, I understand where this legal positivism argument comes from in the sense that to avoid massive political disorder in society, society should establish enforceable laws; However, I think one of the greatest challenges in legal studies is that there are often extreme cases involving the law, such as civil rights, that require societies to consider morality in the law and alternative perspectives regarding this law. I understand that defining these "extreme cases" can be subjective, but I think that is why we have different branches of law and different legal experts to help us establish clear and fair procedures for defining and evaluating objectively examine these types of situations and determine the appropriate procedures around them. Overall, I would say that adopting legal positivism theory is one of the most dangerous approaches to civil rights because with laws so impactful and..