Earlier this month, Representative Frederica Wilson of Florida reported that President Trump made insensitive, off piste comments over the phone to the widow of a soldier recently killed in Niger. According to Wilson, Trump told Myeshia Johnson that her husband “knew what he signed up for, but I guess it still hurt.” Trump flatly denied such comments. President Trump’s Chief of Staff, retired Marine Corps General John Kelly, rushed to Trump’s defense. Kelly called Congresswoman Wilson an “empty barrel,” and noted he was “stunned” over alleged comments she made “grandstanding about her own actions in Congress” at a building dedication ceremony honouring slain FBI agents.
Is the European recognition of positive obligations in human rights law superior to the view taken by the United States Supreme Court?
In the Liberal tradition, democracies emphasise the political and civil rights of their citizenry: autonomy, the rule of law, and both positive and negative liberties of the individual are some of many examples. But what of the negative and positive obligations regarding the state, in as much as human rights are concerned? While the democratic values of Europe and America are largely built upon the same ideals, it is the means by which their different legal systems ascertain government duty wherein a fundamental divergence of responsibility occurs. Principally, the distinction centres on the reach of law, and to what extent conflicts can be ameliorated through courts.