Constitution Rights Essay

â€Å"In the United States, due process refers to a set of established legal principles, derived from the Constitution, that seek to protect the rights of citizens. † Inga Johannsen was put in a situation in which she was discriminated invidiously. Citizens of the United States were treated unequally, ending in a very unfair result for Johannsen. The study that was found in Utopia was said to be too new to be fully evaluated, meaning, Inga should not have been fired until at least further evidence of this study was said to be accurate, if anything. If the situation was different, for example, Inga had just been hired by the school district; the results may not have been such discrimination towards her personally. However, being said that she has been working for four years and 364 days, the scenario is 100% unfair and self-discriminating. The time Inga has been with this district is a proven fact that she is indeed a very well teacher for second graders, or she wouldn’t still be working. I believe that to fire someone who’s been so dedicated to their job and has offered the school district itself so much of their time over a hair color is simply wrong. This is a new study that was just found through the think tank and should only be in affect for those whom are trying to be placed as a teacher in the future. Inga wasn’t given the chance to see if this particular study was found to be accurate, which could have resulted in her changing her hair color instantly. The due process isn’t providing Inga with any fair procedures, which is entirely why it is going against itself in this situation. The second she said she wouldn’t be changing her hair color, the only solution the school took was to fire her. Something could have been easily worked out for her considering her experience and history. Inga was an individual whom was unmistakably acted against on as an individual. In my point of view she has been neglected her of â€Å"life, liberty or property. † The government has every right to forbid Billy Barroner’s advertisement for his bar. Yes, he is promoting alcohol to underage students, however; Barroner is also going against legal or moral ownership rights. This rights were failed to be mentioned in the scenario but could have been brought up by the government if Billy tried to argue the case. Underage drinking is a serious manner in many colleges. Binge drinking can lead to serious health issues and in some cases, future alcoholism. To promote this on a campus isn’t morally correct and is going against the drinking age law. Other actions could have been put into affect for Billy’s business. One action Billy could have taken would have been to promote his business elsewhere, which would have resulted in almost the same traffic flow. He could have attempted to advertise his special in town, where it would be targeted towards people off age, but college students would still be able to see as well. It would have been beneficial for him due to the fact that students don’t stay on campus, they do go into town as well. Some may argue that the government went against his rights, considering it’s a free country and we are granted the freedom of speech; however there are laws and rights that Billy didn’t obey. The government in this situation was very fair and reasonable; Billy just took the action without thinking of the consequences and the drinking age law.