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.

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.

I compared to the Separation of Powers to soccer because I found it similar to one another. If our government wasn't split into three then somone would be taking advantage of the power. Like in soccer how if we didn't have referees players would be taking advantage of foul plays and keep doing bad things.

PBS:Frontline 10 Facts and Questions

Questions:
1. Why does the US have to work on the "dark side"?
2.Why is the CIA doing things in secret?
3.How were the CIA so successful in Afghanistan?
4.Why did the CIA make their own prisons?
5. How would the NSA know which phone call to tap in?
6.How did the NSA manage to spend so much money?
7.Why are all the secrets being told on the internet now?
8.Are the police effective in detecting terrorists with their new technology?
9.How much does Top Secret America spend?
10. How can someone join Top Secret America?

Facts:
1.President Bush signed a document for the CIA to go into Afghanistan.
2. CIA landed in Afghanistan on September 26, 2002.
3.CIA used harsh techniques to get information from captured terrorists, much like torture.
4.CIA was infront og the military.
5.Spring of 2003 the US attacked Iraq.
6.NSA used public buildings as secret bases.
7.Greystone still continued during President Obama's presidentcy.
8.Nearly 3000 innocent people died on September 11, 2001.
9.CIA bought 480 private companies to help with man power.
10.The White House approved the building of International prisons for the CIA.

Interview on Themes Unit 1

I decided to interview one of my buddies from marple, Paul Lee, to get a feel of what he knew about the government. So I asked him what the word government meant to him, surprisingly, he gave me a well-rounded response he said, "Government to me is an institution that is meant to protect people's rights while giving the majority of people what they want and what they need". This was a very close definition to the one we learned in class which surprised me because I would'nt have thought he would get so close to it. He must have a government class also. Next I decided to see if he knew any political issues and see which one's he cared about. He says he is most concerned with the debt crises. He says this is one of the key reasons that make the upcoming election so important, he says who ever is elected will have a different plan to solve the situation. The knowledge he has about our country stuns me. I thought he would be somewhere along my knowledge level because I barely know anything about the government and our country.

After that I decided to ask him what he thought about diversity in our country. He responded by saying, "Our diversity is what makes america unique and special. Without diversity, we are not different than any other country in the world". I agreed with him and didn't think he would give such a optimistic answer. Next I asked him if compromise was necessary in a government. He gave me a very quick answer saying that compromise is fundamental in government, its what makes democracy great and nothing would get accomplished without compromise. Then I asked him how government affected his daily life. He answered by saying without the government he would be able to function freely and securely like he does now, he says although there are rules and regulations he must abide to he says hes happy that the government protects him and gives him rights. After that I continued my interview with him and he gave me some great responses. My friend surprised me tonight with all of his smart answers and he acutally wanted more questions to answer which made me laugh. This interview showed me that some people acutally do know alot about the government I never thought he would be one of those people though.

A People's History of the United States

The packet starts off by saying how the rich control the government for their own intrests, but I believe it was for the benefit for everyone. If the constitution was just for the creators intrests then we wouldn't be the nation we are today. I liked how Jefferson said rebellion is good for the government. It shows that he does care for the government and the people. He says it shows the flaws that goverment has and helps them fix what they were doing wrong. I did not like how slaves, indentured servants, women, and men without property were not of intreset in the Constitution. I think everyone should have a say, and yet they were just excluded out. Slaves were counted part of the state, but had no say in what acutally went into the documents. I find the government to be contradicting to itself, the first amendment says we have the freedom of speech yet they made the Sedition Act. Is the government scared of a little bit of criticism? Overall the systme seems to be alive and well today. We are a great nation and we must not forget where it all stemmed from.

Questions:

Why does it have to be the "rich" people controling the government? Why not poor or normal people?

If rebellions never happened and everyone listened to the goverment, paying taxes etc..., what do you think our government would be like today?

Would the government be as powerful as it is today if it was run by poor people?

Political Cartoon

Questions:

How do you think the artist came up with a drawing like this? Do you agree with it or disagree with it?

Do you think the second amendment is ineffective in our constitution or starting to become ineffective?

If you could, would you change the second amendment or keep it the same?