Where does morality exist before governmet or after government

First, I would say that government has no moral basis (or authority) unless it has been granted them by its citizens. There are various mechanisms to do this — to temporarily transfer collective moral agency to elected representatives and civic institutions, for example — that are grounded in an ongoing collective agreement, and allow adjustment, accountability and malleability over time. It is in these cases that we can say that the moral will of the populace is being expressed by its government, and thereby providing its “moral basis.”

Second, as a fine example, I would encourage examining John Rawls’ “original position” argument as one morally framed approach to governance (i.e. one that promotes fairness, justice and equality according to the most generous definitions of those terms as broadly accepted values). His thought experiment is very simple, very clear, and very “reasonable.” And within his arguments, the moral authority of representatives operating behind Rawls’ veil of ignorancebecomes self-evident.

Third, I would say that the morality of government must therefore reflect the moral maturity of its populace. This is perhaps the most challenging aspect of the equation, because once the two (collective will vs. civic institutions) starts getting out-of-synch, the the moral agreements that justify government break down. Such an unfortunate state of disequilibrium is pretty much where we are today in the U.S., where some 30% of the electorate has regressed to a level of moral immaturity that is aggressively corroding more advanced civic institutions.

hope this helps thanks

in brief the senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other bills.

explanation:

the topics being handled in article 1, section 7, of the u.s constitution, revolve around two issues: the first, the correct procedure to pass legislation regarding revenue production through tax, and the second, the correct process for creating and passing law. in the first case, the text of the constitution literally states that all bills regarding the raising of money, or revenue, need to first be proposed by the house of representatives, although the senate may also play a role here by either proposing such a bill to the house, or agreeing with one being proposed by the house. the second portion, speaks about the process to create, pass and enact legislation. the bill must first be raised by one of the houses, then it must be voted by the plenaries of both houses, and then, it must be presented to the president of the united states, who will either accept it, or veto it, and send it back for reconsideration. if it is not sent back, then the bill is passed into law. if sent back by the president, then the house where the bill originated from will vote again, and if passed by two thirds of the majority, then it goes to the other house, with the observations from the president, for voting. if it passes there as well, then, the bill becomes law, with a few exceptions. this is what is explained in article i, section 7, of the u.s constitution.

hope this have a great

the answer is tom watson. tom watson created this epitaph because he wanted to increase the sympathy felt by people towards the murder of mary phagan.