View this PageEdit this PageUploads to this PageHistory of this PageHomeRecent ChangesSearchHelp Guide


Evaluation from abc123:
The entire premise of your paper seams to me to require a bit more factual support. For example, "foreign nationals must be treated as criminals with constitutional rights." You give no factual support of where the supreme court, or any other law has proven this. I think that if you look into it, particularly, at Kwang Hhai Chew v. Colding, you'll find that the Supreme Court has said that foreign nationals are not afforded constitutional rights unless they have substantial property within the US. I know this blows your entire argument out of the water, but that's what happens when you don't do any research. You're reasoning throughout the paper however, seems to be very well thought out and make sense. At the end of the paper, you restate your claim, which is a good idea, but currently it is rather wordy. A very simple restatement would be a good idea, because that is the one thing that people will walk away with. A wordier ending will be harder to remember.

This Evaluation is by Hondezy:
I think the intro is a little lengthy and can be broken into two paragraphs. Maybe focuse on rights in one half and the type of war in the other half. Paragraph 2 you said Giving as the first word. Who is giving? Maybe say, The Us Government assuming the right.... a side note...Although your paper might be right, does a citizen of another country have constitutional rights? Does a south african wake up and say i have rights over in that country called the US because of Their constitution? just a thought.. paragraph 3: Yet to sacrifice equality over order is extreme an unnecessary. That sentence is a bad fragment and makes no sense. I don't support your view on this, but make sure in paragraph 3 that you are not straying from your view, you gave a lot of support for what bush is doing and the power that was given to him by congress. Make sure you are still fighting your agenda and not letting the reader think otherwise. Again at the end of the 4th paragraph the 3rd and 4th to last sentence seem to be disproving your point. You seem to say it was made to be changed, yet what you are fighting for in the essay is that it shouldn't change. Overall good essay, just try to only fight for your argument.

Contributed by Turbo593:
Your first paragraph seems a bit vague in that your position on the topic is unclear. It would help the reader if you would come out and state your position, like you do quite well in your closing, so the reader is immediately aware of the content of your paper. I also think you have included too much specific information and details in the introduction, a lot of the information regarding how to classify foreign nationals and the exact rights that they have could come later in your paper. Also you have several fragments and grammatical errors that don’t really make sense and I’m sure you can easily take care of them. A couple of spots that I noticed include: “Under what jurisdiction can be applied to these foreign nationals?”, “The US began committed to the principle that all people are endowed with certain inalienable rights”. My last thought would be to rethink or reword you third paragraph. It almost seems like you are building a case for the other side, and the point you are trying to make really doesn’t come out. Overall it’s a fine paper and you make some very good points, a quick revision of grammar and you should be fine.

Link to this Page