Dissenting Opinion:

Are we Christians? Do we believe in the teachings of the Bible? The Bible's teachings are really
important for our democracy. How can we follow the Bible's message to "return every man unto
his family" if we take away someone's personal freedom? Our Constitution says that no one can
lose their freedom without a fair process. How can we "Proclaim liberty throughout all the land
unto all the inhabitants" if we're keeping someone in our country locked up, ignoring our own
laws?

Those of us who have children and hope they'll keep living here are worried about what's
happening. We're concerned about the harmful effects of a legal system that allows people's
freedom to be ignored, like what's happening in this case. We're afraid of the dangers to
personal safety and freedom in the future. We're worried about what will happen to our loved
ones, whose lives will carry on our legacy after we're gone. We're scared about what might
happen if we don't protect people's freedoms.

Thomas Jefferson, a famous person, asked if a nation's freedoms can be safe if people stop
believing they come from God. He was worried that if we don't respect these God-given
liberties, bad things might happen. He was concerned that justice might catch up with us. He
believed that God wouldn't support a contest where people's freedoms were taken away.

Senator Elbert Thomas:

Long ago, if the Church had actually put into practice what Jesus taught about valuing each
person's soul, the world might have had a lasting and free society. Jesus saw everyone as
brothers and equally precious in God's eyes. No matter their background or status, people were
allowed to find their own way to salvation. In the early Christian philosophy, the importance of
the individual was emphasized, giving people the freedom to make choices and express their
beliefs.

The idea of freedom has been brought to light many times throughout history, burning brightly for short
periods. Sometimes the flame weakened or wavered, but it was never fully put out. Whenever it faded,
people reignited it—sometimes for religious freedom, other times for political rights. The founders of the
United States, especially Thomas Jefferson, designed a society where all types of freedom—religious,
speech, and personal—could become real. Jefferson represented the spirit of Americanism and the
collective desire for freedom. He built on the work of previous freedom fighters and became a leader in
the ongoing quest for freedom. Because he brought together the dreams of those who came before, he
valued all forms of liberty equally. By building on the foundation created over time, he became a global
figure, not just an American one.

We believe that the principles of human freedom will always last. We're sharing this opinion as a
plea to the majority's sense of fairness. Our personal experiences during enemy occupation and
the suffering under their rule shouldn't influence our judgment in this case.

All of us have suffered losses and seen terrible things during that time. We mourn for our loved
ones and remember the bad acts committed by the enemy. It's natural to have strong feelings,
but we have a duty to be fair judges despite our emotions.

Political issues can stir up powerful emotions. We must be careful to not let these feelings affect
our decisions. That's why the People's Court was created to give special protection to those
accused of political offenses. This helps ensure equal rights in trials and prevents discrimination.

We might dislike what the petitioner did during the enemy's rule. But as judges, we must set
aside our personal feelings to deliver real justice. Law and justice don't have personal
preferences. We must decide based on whether the petition is right, not who the petitioner is.

Even the constitutions of Nazi Germany and Fascist Japan guaranteed personal freedom, but
those promises meant nothing under their rule. This shows the big difference between
totalitarianism and democracy. Should we adopt their ways now that we're free from their
control?

We need to forget who the petitioner is and focus on the importance of the law and our
Constitution. Even in the Middle Ages, someone said, "I crave the law." Despite someone's
condition or accusations against them, they don't lose their rights under our laws. Everyone,
regardless of who they are, deserves legal protection.

We have to uphold a government of laws that treats everyone equally. No matter their status,
everyone should have the same protection. The petitioner, no matter what they're accused of,
still has rights that should be respected.

ven though people might accuse the petitioner of many things, we can't think of them worse
than some of history's most notorious criminals. Even these criminals have the right to a fair trial,
to be represented by lawyers, and to present evidence. Democracy's virtue is that it can deliver
justice even to its enemies, which sets it apart from dictatorships.

The writer mentions the words "I crave the law," which describe how law is important to people
personally and in society. It talks about how these words transform a character's situation and
highlight the significance of the law.

The writer compares two characters, Shylock and Michel Kohlhaas, to illustrate the power of law.
Shylock's faith in the law is shaken when he's denied justice. Michel Kohlhaas, in contrast, fights
for justice even against corrupt authorities. Their stories show how law can be both a protector
and a challenge.
The writer continues discussing Michel Kohlhaas' story, where he fights for justice against
injustice. Michel sacrifices everything to defend his rights and those of others. His struggle
highlights the importance of law, even when facing difficulties and corrupt systems.

The writer reflects on how people with strong ideals of justice can be pushed to extremes by
flawed legal systems. Michel Kohlhaas' story shows how a noble person's fight for justice can
lead to unfortunate outcomes when legal institutions fail to provide satisfaction.

The writer points out that sometimes the fight for justice can turn against the very law it seeks to
uphold. When legal institutions fail, people might try to seek justice outside the law, leading to
conflicts between the idea of legal rights and the inability of the legal system to protect those
rights.

The writer emphasizes that the struggle for justice can lead to negative consequences when the
legal system fails. Sometimes, entire communities might protest against the injustice they face,
creating alternative ways of seeking justice when official institutions don't provide it.

In essence, these paragraphs discuss the power of law and the struggles people face when seeking
justice in imperfect legal systems. They highlight how individuals' commitment to justice can lead
them to fight for their rights and how communities might rally against injustice.

Michel Kohlhaas was a character in a story who experienced a struggle for justice. He
faced a situation where his rights were violated, and he sought legal remedies to
address the wrongs done to him. However, he encountered difficulties in obtaining
justice through the established legal system.

Despite his efforts to use the law to address his grievances, he found that the legal
institutions were corrupt and unfair. His attempts to seek redress within the legal
framework were met with obstacles, and even those in authority sided with injustice.

Feeling frustrated by the failure of the legal system to provide him with the justice he
sought, Michel Kohlhaas took matters into his own hands. He decided to pursue his own
form of justice outside the law. This led him to resort to actions that were seen as
extreme and violent, such as destroying property and causing disruption.

Ultimately, Michel Kohlhaas' fight for justice turned into a struggle against the very legal
system that should have protected his rights. While he initially sought to uphold the
principles of law, his experiences revealed the flaws and corruption within the legal
institutions of his time. His actions highlighted the challenges people can face when
trying to navigate a legal system that fails to provide adequate remedies for grievances.

In the end, Michel Kohlhaas' case represents a complex and tragic story of a man who,
driven by a sense of injustice, took extreme measures when the legal system failed him,
showcasing the tensions between individual ideals of justice and the limitations of the
legal system

Elemental Principles:

Personal liberty means the ability to move around freely without being imprisoned or restricted,
unless the law requires it. It's a natural right that has existed for a long time and is protected by
the law.

Due process of law" means that any legal action or procedure should be carried out by the
government, whether based on tradition or new laws, to ensure fairness and justice. This
principle protects life, liberty, and property from being taken or harmed except through proper
legal procedures

Arresting someone without a proper warrant, when a warrant is required by law, isn't considered
due process. However, if there's a risk of justice not being served due to the lack of a warrant, an
officer might arrest without one. Sometimes, a person can waive the need for a warrant by
pleading guilty later.

When a law requires a warrant, it can't be assumed that the authority to arrest without a warrant
comes from a general power granted to a municipality. The requirement for a proper warrant
still stands. (This means that when a law says that a warrant is needed to make an arrest, you
can't just assume that a city or town has the power to arrest someone without a warrant based
on their general authority. The rule about needing a proper warrant to arrest someone still
applies, even if the municipality has some general powers. In other words, if the law says you
need a warrant, you can't ignore that rule just because the local government has certain
abilities.)

For more serious crimes, due process involves a lawful indictment or charge brought by a group
of people, followed by a public trial in a proper court.

The government has the right to control its citizens to keep society safe, but it can't go beyond
that point. Laws that prevent harm to others increase personal freedom, but unnecessary
restrictions are a form of tyranny.

One of the strengths of our government is that the laws are fair and equal, and even the lowest
members of society have rights that are protected. All government officials, from the highest to
the lowest, must obey the law.

No magistrate or person can act outside the law. Restraining someone's liberty without proper
legal process is false imprisonment and can lead to damages and criminal charges for the
people responsible.

A magistrate who issues a warrant without a proper sworn complaint can be held liable for an
arrest based on that warrant, even if they thought a crime had been committed.