However, the two scholars do not agree on the fact that the language used when it came to framing the Act was odd. Zuckert argues that the language was odd and thus did not give any help to the people who are supposed to effect it. In fact, he does not see the Act to be of any help at all but only criticizes it all through his article. This is not the same with Frantz for he sees the bill to be of help in public sector and especially when individuals oppress others depriving them of their human rights.
Zuckert sees the whole Act as just a mere repetition of the natural Act since the rights in discussion are the ones in the Natural Act. However, he concludes that the Act helped in rectifying the working of the state laws since whenever they fail, the congress has to take power.
Both the scholars find the Act to have helped in challenging the state laws which if left alone can fail to personal interests of the effectors. However, they do not see the Act to work in the same perspective since while it is just a repetition to Zuckert, it is a well framed Act to Frantz. Further, the two find the Act very complex in its application.
These are just excerpts of essays for you to view. Please click on Order Now for custom essays, research papers, term papers, thesis, dissertations, case studies and book reports.