Connections/Ideas:
1. President chose someone from their party to fill in a seat for the Supreme Court.
2. Using different methods to get more seats open.
3. Interviews to see who is right for the seat in the Supreme Court
4. Compromising with other party to get a greater good for themselves.
5. Competition between people for the seat in the Supreme Court.
6. Woman replacing a woman in the Supreme Court.
7. Senate must approve the candidate.
8. Abortion was made legal.
Questions:
1. What is a shorelist?
2. Do they really interview the candidate?
3. Was there ever a woman as a Chief Justice before?
4. How long does it take to find a replacement in real life?
5. When is the right age to resign from the Supreme Court?
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Friday, October 28, 2011
The Federalist No. 78
Questions:
1. Why did you presume that the Judiciary Branch was the weakest of all branches?
2. Did you think that the Judiciary Branch was going to be weak forever or did you think that it would eventually get stronger?
3. How do you know that the Judiciary Branch would have no effect on the U.S. economy.
4. If the Judiciary Branch was weak, why did it not get overpowered by the others?
5. If you could come to present day, what would you think about the Judiciary Branch now?
Quotes:
1. According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State.
I thought this quote was important because this shows that only "good" judges may hold their position. We would not want a "bad" one making judgements.
2.The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
I thought this quote was important because Hamilton really makes it seem as if the Judiciary Branch were useless. He says he has no influence in our economy and that it must depend on the executive arm, but it does not seem like that today.
3. And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments.
I thought this quote was imporatant because Hamilton makes it sound like the judiciary branch is useless without the other two. But it is quite the opposite today the judiciary branch can now declare any of the Legislative or Executive Branch actions unconstitutional, the judiciary branch has more power today.
4. Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.
I thought this quote was important because it contains the ideas of the Checks and Balances and says that is is needed the Separation of Powers.
5. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges.
I thought this quote was important because it shows that not everyone can take the job of a judge. It says that being a judge actually takes skill that some do not have.
1. Why did you presume that the Judiciary Branch was the weakest of all branches?
2. Did you think that the Judiciary Branch was going to be weak forever or did you think that it would eventually get stronger?
3. How do you know that the Judiciary Branch would have no effect on the U.S. economy.
4. If the Judiciary Branch was weak, why did it not get overpowered by the others?
5. If you could come to present day, what would you think about the Judiciary Branch now?
Quotes:
1. According to the plan of the convention, all judges who may be appointed by the United States are to hold their offices DURING GOOD BEHAVIOR; which is conformable to the most approved of the State constitutions and among the rest, to that of this State.
I thought this quote was important because this shows that only "good" judges may hold their position. We would not want a "bad" one making judgements.
2.The judiciary, on the contrary, has no influence over either the sword or the purse; no direction either of the strength or of the wealth of the society; and can take no active resolution whatever. It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment; and must ultimately depend upon the aid of the executive arm even for the efficacy of its judgments.
I thought this quote was important because Hamilton really makes it seem as if the Judiciary Branch were useless. He says he has no influence in our economy and that it must depend on the executive arm, but it does not seem like that today.
3. And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments.
I thought this quote was imporatant because Hamilton makes it sound like the judiciary branch is useless without the other two. But it is quite the opposite today the judiciary branch can now declare any of the Legislative or Executive Branch actions unconstitutional, the judiciary branch has more power today.
4. Some perplexity respecting the rights of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void, because contrary to the Constitution, has arisen from an imagination that the doctrine would imply a superiority of the judiciary to the legislative power. It is urged that the authority which can declare the acts of another void, must necessarily be superior to the one whose acts may be declared void.
I thought this quote was important because it contains the ideas of the Checks and Balances and says that is is needed the Separation of Powers.
5. Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges.
I thought this quote was important because it shows that not everyone can take the job of a judge. It says that being a judge actually takes skill that some do not have.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
2000 Election Reading Part 2
Facts/Details:
1. The Supreme court voted and ended up as a 5-4 vote with the majority consisting of the courts most conserative justices.
2. The courts rationale was ambitious and weak.
3. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted state law to require the Secretary of State to extend the statutory deadline for a manual recount.
4. In seeking certiorari, Bush raised three federal challenges to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
5. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4 to 3, that a manual recount was required by state law, and it thus accepted Gore's contest.
6. On December 9, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
7. Ballots differ from county to county. Some countries use a version of the controverial "butterfly ballot".
8. Citizens in Alabama use different machinery from that used by citizens in New York.
9. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was an effort to use the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to try to ensure more rule-bound decisions.
Post reading questions:
1. Do the machines still miss some votes or is it 100% accurate now?
2. Was it bad if the majority of the Supreme Court were mostly conserative judges?
3. The Supreme Court had no precedent, did this make it harder or easier to make a decision?
4. Why doesn't the United States just make it so all the voting cards/booths were all the same?
5. How much of an effect did minimalism have in the election?
1. The Supreme court voted and ended up as a 5-4 vote with the majority consisting of the courts most conserative justices.
2. The courts rationale was ambitious and weak.
3. On November 21, the Florida Supreme Court interpreted state law to require the Secretary of State to extend the statutory deadline for a manual recount.
4. In seeking certiorari, Bush raised three federal challenges to the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
5. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4 to 3, that a manual recount was required by state law, and it thus accepted Gore's contest.
6. On December 9, the Supreme Court issued a stay of the decision of the Florida Supreme Court.
7. Ballots differ from county to county. Some countries use a version of the controverial "butterfly ballot".
8. Citizens in Alabama use different machinery from that used by citizens in New York.
9. In the 1960s and 1970s, there was an effort to use the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses to try to ensure more rule-bound decisions.
Post reading questions:
1. Do the machines still miss some votes or is it 100% accurate now?
2. Was it bad if the majority of the Supreme Court were mostly conserative judges?
3. The Supreme Court had no precedent, did this make it harder or easier to make a decision?
4. Why doesn't the United States just make it so all the voting cards/booths were all the same?
5. How much of an effect did minimalism have in the election?
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
What my Politician has been up too part 2.
My other politician I chose to follow was Robert Casey Jr. He is a U.S. Senator that represents Pennsylvania for about 4 years now. Robert Casey has sponsored 174 bills since Jan 4, 2007. 170 haven't made it out of committee and unfortunately none were successfully enacted. Casey has co-sponsored 736 bills during the same time period. Some of his recently sponsered bills include the Fallen Heroes of 9/11 Act, Children's Hospital GME Support Reauthorization Act of 2011, Extensions for emergency relief for morgages and other payments, Computer Science Education Act of 2011, and the National Opportunity/Community Renewal Act. Casey sounds like a caring guy who shares my same views, I hope he can get some of his bills he wants enacted to get enacted.
The Common Good
A common good in our society sounds like a big fantasy that we are trying to reach. The essay says we should have cooperation with one another to achieve a common goal, but I find that impossible in our nation. If we had common good in our world, it would be perfect; everyone would have money to spend, cheap health care to pay, participation from everyone in the community. Sounds like a perfect world to live in, but unfortunately nothing in our world is perfect; we are far from perfect. This essay reminds me about Federalist no. 10 that Madison wrote, I find it these two papers similar because Madison says if everyone had the same thoughts and ideas we wouldn't have problems with factions, which is impossible he said. Its the same for the common good if everyone had the same thoughts and ideas we could achieve the common good easily. If we didn't have individualism there would be no selfishness in our world, we would be able to achieve anything. Unfortunately there are selfish people who always want more and more in life. I'm not saying individualism is bad, we all want to express ourselves right? But we could benefit a whole lot more if we focused on the bigger idea to benefit everyone instead of just ourselves. Common good does not exist in our world, everyone is too greedy there are people who do try their best, but it does not make up for those who don't try at all.
Thursday, October 20, 2011
2000 Election Film
1. Florida is worth 25 electoral votes.
2. Punching out chads was the method of voting for Florida citizens.
3. They recounted 1% of Floridas votes and based it off of that.
4. They only recounted in specific counties of Florida.
5. The U.S. Supreme Court concluded to end the recount.
6. There were a lot of protesters who felt strongly for a recount in Florida.
7. The machine could make the mistake of not counting a vote because the chad could cover up the hole again.
8. Bush won the election in the end.
Questions:
1. The film said different numbers could come out of a recount, why is that?
2. Why didn't they let the state of Florida do a revote?; I don't think it would it would have taken too long if given some more time.
3. How could they improve the current voting method in Florida?
4. Why couldn't they just finish the recount if they were so close instead of suspending it?
5. Why did the police let the protesters in the building?
6. If they did extend the recount time limit, who would be the president in the mean time?
7. Who would have really won if they finished the recount process?
8. Were the citizens of Florida being treated fairly? Many of them did want a recount.
2000 Election Reading
Prereading questions:
1. Why did they make the voting cards so confusing?
2. Why did they use chads, why not fill in a circle, or circle the letter for the person you want to vote for?
3. Has this been a one of a kind thing or has it happened already in the past?
4. How long does a recount usually take if they were not pressured on the time limit?
5. Was it fair of them to stop the recount?
Facts/Details:
1. The election was finally decided on a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. Democrats demanded a vote recount in several Florida counties.
3. The Florida votes were cast by punching out a chad.
4. Winning the state of Florida for the candidates is worth 25 electoral votes for them.
5. Bush won in the end of the election.
Post reading questions:
1. Will we ever find out who really won the election?
2. Are chads still used or are they discontinued because of the 2000 election incident?
3. Why did they not extend the time limit for the recount? Is this unfair or is it ok in your opinion?
4. How could they have done this more efficiently and less chaotic then they did during the time?
5. Were the older citizens just saying they thought they voted for the wrong person or did they just take advantage of the confusion and demanded recounts to help Gore?
1. Why did they make the voting cards so confusing?
2. Why did they use chads, why not fill in a circle, or circle the letter for the person you want to vote for?
3. Has this been a one of a kind thing or has it happened already in the past?
4. How long does a recount usually take if they were not pressured on the time limit?
5. Was it fair of them to stop the recount?
Facts/Details:
1. The election was finally decided on a 5-4 majority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
2. Democrats demanded a vote recount in several Florida counties.
3. The Florida votes were cast by punching out a chad.
4. Winning the state of Florida for the candidates is worth 25 electoral votes for them.
5. Bush won in the end of the election.
Post reading questions:
1. Will we ever find out who really won the election?
2. Are chads still used or are they discontinued because of the 2000 election incident?
3. Why did they not extend the time limit for the recount? Is this unfair or is it ok in your opinion?
4. How could they have done this more efficiently and less chaotic then they did during the time?
5. Were the older citizens just saying they thought they voted for the wrong person or did they just take advantage of the confusion and demanded recounts to help Gore?
Health Care Blog 2
Health care is something I believe everyone needs in our nation. I did some research and found out that the United States does not spend health care money efficiently. My source says that an estimated one-third of 2006 health care expenditures, about $700 billion or nearly 5% of GDP, did not improve health outcomes. 700 billion dollars is alot of money, yet it does not improve how our health care system works. Think if we had 700 billion dollars put into something else such as helping 3rd world countries. I wonder what the United States could blow 700 billion dollars on and still not improve our health care system. The price only keeps going up for the people who pay for it, yet they get no improvements.
What I want to know is how can the US make it so our health care is affordable and effective for our people. I think too many people are uninsured and the US isn't doing all they can to lower the number of uninsured. I feel like our government is too busy playing politics and not focusing on what really matters. If our government was more cooperative with one another I'm sure that we wouldn't be in the health care crises we are in now. We are a one of the leading nations in the world, yet we can't take care of the increasing number of uninsured and underinsured in our country.
What I want to know is how can the US make it so our health care is affordable and effective for our people. I think too many people are uninsured and the US isn't doing all they can to lower the number of uninsured. I feel like our government is too busy playing politics and not focusing on what really matters. If our government was more cooperative with one another I'm sure that we wouldn't be in the health care crises we are in now. We are a one of the leading nations in the world, yet we can't take care of the increasing number of uninsured and underinsured in our country.
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
What my Politician has been up too.
I chose to follow Corrine Brown. She has represented Florida's 3rd congressional district for about 18 years nows (wow! longer then I have been living.). She has sponsored 53 bills since Jan 5, 1993. 40 of the bills have not made it out of committee, but 5 were successfully enacted. Brown has co-sponsored 2,852 bills during the same time period. Some of her recently sponsered bills include improving and providing increased acess to the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing program, the Easy Voting Act of 2011, Supporting the goals and ideals of National Train Day, and To grant the congressional gold medal to the Montford Point Marines. It sounds like she really likes trains and anything train related. I hope she is successful in what ever she pursues.
Health Care Blog 1
I don't know too much about health care, but I know it will be something major later in my life time. I know that a lot of people in the United States today are uninsured because its rising prices. I did a little research and found out that the price of health care from 2001 to 2005 increased 30% while income only increased 3%. I find it difficult to understand why the price jumps up so quickly and why it costs so much, but I do understand why alot of people do not have it now. I also learned about the underinsured people in health care. These are people who have health care, but stuggle to pay for it. A lot of them are faced with rising health care premiums, deductibles, and copayments, as well as limits on coverage for various services or other limits and excluded services that can increase out-of-pocket expenses. One of my sources says that the number of underinsured has grown 60% over the past four years. This surprises me because that is a fairly large number to reach in a short amount of time.
I get worried when I think about how I'm suppose to afford health care for myself later in the future. I will probably have school loans to pay for, car insurance, gasoline, food, perhaps rent for an apartment, and on top of all of that health care for myself and possibly for a family I have to support. I learned that approximately 50 percent of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses and that 28% of middle income families haver serious problems trying to pay for health care. I heard that the United States is fast becoming one of the worst health care systems in the world and that not only are they the only industrialized nation that does not provide some form of universal health care to it’s citizens, they have one of the highest rates for health care expenditures. I can only hope the price decreases by the time I have to take care of those kinds of things myself.
I get worried when I think about how I'm suppose to afford health care for myself later in the future. I will probably have school loans to pay for, car insurance, gasoline, food, perhaps rent for an apartment, and on top of all of that health care for myself and possibly for a family I have to support. I learned that approximately 50 percent of personal bankruptcies are due to medical expenses and that 28% of middle income families haver serious problems trying to pay for health care. I heard that the United States is fast becoming one of the worst health care systems in the world and that not only are they the only industrialized nation that does not provide some form of universal health care to it’s citizens, they have one of the highest rates for health care expenditures. I can only hope the price decreases by the time I have to take care of those kinds of things myself.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Madison definition of Faction
Madison says a faction is like a group of citizens who unite together because they have a common impulse of passion, interests, and ideas. He says factions have bad effects on the nations and he seems to not like them at all. He says that the only way to stop big factions from causing problems is to create more so their would be no homogenous faction. Madison wanted to get rid of factions, but he said it would be very difficult to do so.
Questions:
1. What would happen if a faction had too much power in our country?
2. Are factions really that bad? Was Madison just overreacting? They just unite people together to achieve a common goal.
3. What would be considered a faction in our modern era?
4. How are factions created and how long can they last for?
5. If a faction has bad points, then what are its good points?
I define a faction as a group of people that join together because of same ideas or interests. Like a club at school. They group of together after school and do things they all like. Another example could be a team sport such as football. They all work together to achieve victory together. From how Madison states it a faction sounds a lot like clubs and possibly our politcal parties today.
Questions:
1. What would happen if a faction had too much power in our country?
2. Are factions really that bad? Was Madison just overreacting? They just unite people together to achieve a common goal.
3. What would be considered a faction in our modern era?
4. How are factions created and how long can they last for?
5. If a faction has bad points, then what are its good points?
I define a faction as a group of people that join together because of same ideas or interests. Like a club at school. They group of together after school and do things they all like. Another example could be a team sport such as football. They all work together to achieve victory together. From how Madison states it a faction sounds a lot like clubs and possibly our politcal parties today.
Monday, October 10, 2011
Two members of Congress I would follow
I would follow Robert Casey Jr. because the ideology survey said I would agree with the Democratic views and since Robert Casey is the only democrat I chose him. Robert Casey Jr. is the first Democrat elected to a full term in the U.S. Senate from Pennsylvania.
Political Ideology Results
Based on my responses to the questions on the political ideology survey, I am a moderate liberal. It said I would most likely agree with the views of the Democratic Party and that I would also be interested in the Green Party. The survery said my ideology is shared by Corrine Brown (D- FL, 3rd District) and Shelley Berkley (D-NV, 1st District), who are members of the House of Respresentatives.
Thursday, October 6, 2011
US Constitution Question Opinions
Stephanie May's question:
Would the founding fathers be pleased with how the constitution works now?
I found this question intresting because the constitution now has changed a little since back when it was first created. I believe that the founding fathers would be some what pleased with the constitution today and how it lasted so long. It is much more stronger and stable then it was back then. I don't think they would like how the political groups don't cooperate together. I think they would like how the US protects the people and how we grew from a small nation to one of the greatest nations in the world. But it is hard to say what they would think without actually being them.
Aaron Mazer's question
It has been such a long time since the constituion was written, why has there only been a few changes? Why hasnt it been fully re-written at this point?
Aarons question brings up a good point. How has the constitution lasted so long? I believe it hasn't been through many changes and re-writes because of how well written it was back when the founding fathers were alive. It states important things like protecting the people and doing whats best for them. I don't think there would be any other way to put it better then the constitution did when it was first written. Maybe our government is just a little lazy and decided it was good enough. But it has been working for us over 200 years, so why change something that has been going well for so long?
Would the founding fathers be pleased with how the constitution works now?
I found this question intresting because the constitution now has changed a little since back when it was first created. I believe that the founding fathers would be some what pleased with the constitution today and how it lasted so long. It is much more stronger and stable then it was back then. I don't think they would like how the political groups don't cooperate together. I think they would like how the US protects the people and how we grew from a small nation to one of the greatest nations in the world. But it is hard to say what they would think without actually being them.
Aaron Mazer's question
It has been such a long time since the constituion was written, why has there only been a few changes? Why hasnt it been fully re-written at this point?
Aarons question brings up a good point. How has the constitution lasted so long? I believe it hasn't been through many changes and re-writes because of how well written it was back when the founding fathers were alive. It states important things like protecting the people and doing whats best for them. I don't think there would be any other way to put it better then the constitution did when it was first written. Maybe our government is just a little lazy and decided it was good enough. But it has been working for us over 200 years, so why change something that has been going well for so long?
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
Democracy in America Video
Questions:
1.Why is Idaho so against wolves coming in?
2. Is the government abusing their power by forcing Idaho to take responsibility for the wolves?
3. Why can't the citizens of Idaho coexist with the wolves?
4.How many wolves are in Idaho now? Did it increase or decrease?
5.Why can't South Carolina accept the new standard for detecting drunk driving?
6. Is the government threatening states by saying they would take away their high way funds?
7. Was the New Deal effective for the people in the 1930's?
8. Why is the government pushing off welfare to the states if they know some states can't use it to its full potential?
9.Why is Mississippi a poor state?
10. How can we improve the welfare of poorer states?
Facts:
1. You must follow the endangered species act.
2. Federalism has evolved into complex relationships.
3. Wolves were reintroduced into the wilderness of Idaho.
4. South Carolina did not have the machines to detect drunk drivers before.
5. Each state wanted a different standard for being drunk so it was set to .08 for the whole nation.
6. The United States was in Depression in the 1930's.
7. The number of single parents were increasing in the 1990's.
8. Welfare standards differ for each state.
9. Mississippi is a poorer state that provides minimal support for people who need welfare.
10. Mississippi only supports one third of the people who acutally needs welfare.
1.Why is Idaho so against wolves coming in?
2. Is the government abusing their power by forcing Idaho to take responsibility for the wolves?
3. Why can't the citizens of Idaho coexist with the wolves?
4.How many wolves are in Idaho now? Did it increase or decrease?
5.Why can't South Carolina accept the new standard for detecting drunk driving?
6. Is the government threatening states by saying they would take away their high way funds?
7. Was the New Deal effective for the people in the 1930's?
8. Why is the government pushing off welfare to the states if they know some states can't use it to its full potential?
9.Why is Mississippi a poor state?
10. How can we improve the welfare of poorer states?
Facts:
1. You must follow the endangered species act.
2. Federalism has evolved into complex relationships.
3. Wolves were reintroduced into the wilderness of Idaho.
4. South Carolina did not have the machines to detect drunk drivers before.
5. Each state wanted a different standard for being drunk so it was set to .08 for the whole nation.
6. The United States was in Depression in the 1930's.
7. The number of single parents were increasing in the 1990's.
8. Welfare standards differ for each state.
9. Mississippi is a poorer state that provides minimal support for people who need welfare.
10. Mississippi only supports one third of the people who acutally needs welfare.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
The Federalist No. 10
Questions:
1. Is it bad to take too quick of an action when citizens complain?
2. Can't they just eliminate factions all together instead of just its negative effects?
3. How would Madison destroy liberty to stop a faction if it is essential to political life?
4. How could we distribute the properties more evenly?
5. Is having a variety of different opinions bad?
Quotes:
1. It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that is worse than the disease.
I liked this quote because it states that taking away liberty would be worse then getting rid of factions.
2. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired.....
I chose this quotes because it says how we improved our constitution so much but we shouldn't get too full of ourselves.
3. ....conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an intrested and overbearing majority.
It makes me think, why does the majority get to do what they want and not consider the others?
4. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.
This quote popped up to me because it says that factions have made other governments perish, shouldn't the US get rid of this as soon as possible?
5. No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
I chose this quote because it say's we shouldn't judge our own work or we'll just cheat ourselves, It shows that we do need some other people to help us out.
1. Is it bad to take too quick of an action when citizens complain?
2. Can't they just eliminate factions all together instead of just its negative effects?
3. How would Madison destroy liberty to stop a faction if it is essential to political life?
4. How could we distribute the properties more evenly?
5. Is having a variety of different opinions bad?
Quotes:
1. It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that is worse than the disease.
I liked this quote because it states that taking away liberty would be worse then getting rid of factions.
2. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired.....
I chose this quotes because it says how we improved our constitution so much but we shouldn't get too full of ourselves.
3. ....conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an intrested and overbearing majority.
It makes me think, why does the majority get to do what they want and not consider the others?
4. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.
This quote popped up to me because it says that factions have made other governments perish, shouldn't the US get rid of this as soon as possible?
5. No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
I chose this quote because it say's we shouldn't judge our own work or we'll just cheat ourselves, It shows that we do need some other people to help us out.
The Federalist No. 51
Questions:
1. Was Federalist No. 51 effective in completing its purpose?
2. Why is it so important to split up the power of the people into 3?
3. How does government reflect human nature?
4. How would ambition counteract ambition?
5. Does the government really protect all of society against injustice of the other part?
Quotes:
1.In order to lay a foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own...
I like how this quote stated that each branch should be able to decide for themselves instead of letting other people deicde for them.
2.It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices.
I like this part of the quote because that the branches should be less dependent on other memebers and be more independent.
3.Ambition must be made to couteract ambition.
This caught my eye because it's saying how we should use ambition against ambition which is ironic to me.
4. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
I chose this quote because it's stating how government itself is the greatest reflection of human nature. It makes me think about how this is true.
5.If a majority be united by a common intrest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
I chose this quote because I agree with it. The majority always get what they want we forget about the minority. What may be good for the majority could have dire effects on the minority.
1. Was Federalist No. 51 effective in completing its purpose?
2. Why is it so important to split up the power of the people into 3?
3. How does government reflect human nature?
4. How would ambition counteract ambition?
5. Does the government really protect all of society against injustice of the other part?
Quotes:
1.In order to lay a foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own...
I like how this quote stated that each branch should be able to decide for themselves instead of letting other people deicde for them.
2.It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices.
I like this part of the quote because that the branches should be less dependent on other memebers and be more independent.
3.Ambition must be made to couteract ambition.
This caught my eye because it's saying how we should use ambition against ambition which is ironic to me.
4. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
I chose this quote because it's stating how government itself is the greatest reflection of human nature. It makes me think about how this is true.
5.If a majority be united by a common intrest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
I chose this quote because I agree with it. The majority always get what they want we forget about the minority. What may be good for the majority could have dire effects on the minority.
Monday, October 3, 2011
Political Cartoon (Part 2)
Questions
Is the middle class really dropping down to low numbers or is this an exaggeration?
How do you think we can increase the number of people, in the United States, to the status of "middle class"?
How can we tell what class we are in, is there a distinct way to tell? Does it feel different in a way?
Simile/Metaphor for Seperation of Powers and Checks and Balances
The Checks and Balances is like three separate branches on a tree. They each balance the tree out and make sure that one branch doesn't get more nutrients than the others.I compared the Checks and Balances to a tree branch because it is essentially the same. Tree branches get nutrients distrubited evenly among each other, so that no one branch can get overly large or have more power over one another.
The Separation of Powers is like soccer. There are three different things that keep the game together. First is the coaches they tell the players what to do like the president. Second is the referee that makes judgements to see if something is right or wrong. Third is the rules they are made up and must be followed if passed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)