Sample exam, excerpt
Question:
In his article, Michael Grossberg
asserted that rights are a dialogue between citizens and government. What do
you think he meant by that? Do the materials that we have read so far this
semester suggest that this was always the case? What documents seem to support Grossberg’s contention? Which seem to call it into
question? Why?
Answer:
|
First
paragraph: [1] Rights
are designed as a method to protect people from the overreach of government
in their lives.
[2] Michael Grossberg’s statement that “rights are a dialogue between
citizens and government,” defines the idea of rights as something reciprocal,
and as something that gives equal weight to the power of the government and
the power of the people. [3] This definition embodies the notion of consent and the nation
that government is somehow limited by the amount of power the people are
willing to give it. [4]
This contractual image of rights is something that developed over a long
period of time. This redistribution of power started in |
[1] Sets out a working definition of
rights, an essential term in the question. [2] Refers to the question. [3] Ties quote in question back to
definition of rights, and expands on definition of
rights in sentence 1. [4] Two sentences that elaborate on
definition of rights and provide a thesis, with reference to some documents
that will support the thesis. |
|
Second
paragraph [1] The
Charter of Liberties in 1100 was the first step in the development of a
document that the king was responsible to. [2] It granted rights to the nobles in the form of protection against
things like unfair taxation. Though the rights were there, the dialogue was absent.
The king offered no method for enforcement and did not agree to be under the
rule of law. Unenforceable, therefore illegitimate rights existed, with a
king never being expected to hear the dialogue of the people in regards to
their rights. |
[1] Identifies a document from the
readings, ties it to the theory of rights set out in the first paragraph. [2] Briefly explains what the document
does in terms of the main idea: rights. [3] Explains why the “rights” in
this document did not meet Grossberg’s test, as
that test was articulated in this answer. |
The
Magna Charta was the next step taken to give the rule of law a concrete shape.
It offered limited rights to certain people, based on status. The rights under
the Magna Charta were not universal or optimal. First issued under King John,
the Magna Charta included reins on the power of government and accountability
in paragraph 61. Somewhere along the unstable beginnings of the Magna Charta,
the power of the people under paragraph 61 was omitted. Reissued under Henry
III, the Magna Charta silenced the ability of the people of
Grossberg’s
ideological view of rights became more of a reality in the colony of Massachustts Bay. The Charter issued by King Charles
allowed for the establishment of a General Court and a Court of Assistants
where men, but only freemen, could have a role in the development of laws. The
shift away from a divinely appointed King to a democracy was seen. The ability
of anyone’s voice other than a King to be heard in the law of the land is at it’s beginning stages.
The
Declaration of Independence issued by the colonists in 1776 is the first
document that fully supports Grossberg’s contention
that rights require an open line of communication between people and their
government. The Declaration introduced the new idea of universal human rights,
the expectation that government would respect those human rights,
and, most importantly, the ability of the people to dialogue in the powerful
form of revolution if that protection failed to exist. With the idea that
government was only by the consent of the people, the people found themselves
in a powerful position to hold those institutions accountable, and they
encountered the liberty to remove their consent if the situation demanded.
If the
idea of rights as Grossberg envisioned can only exist
when both parties can be heard in the dialogue, rights to their fullest only
exist when consent is permitted by people as citizens, not subjects. Large
shifts in ideology had to take place, and did eventually take place to shift
the power from the top to the people.