Connections
1. Roe v Wade gave right to abortion
2. Executive Branch is carrying out process of appointing a new supreme court justice
3. Referenced a 9th circuit state court
4. Extensive background searches are needed for selection and appointment of a federal judge
5. The current judge wouldn't step down because the President wouldn't fill the seat with same party and views
6. President and others hoped the elder man would step down
7. President appointed a judge of his own party
8. Two vacancies could occur at some point of time
9. Mentions enumerated powers
Questions
1. Why is abortion such a big deal if it was legal? Can they legally judge her off of this?
2. Do they really go through all this trouble? Does it get this chaotic and intense?
3. If so, why don't they change this process?
4. Would they ever actually plan on someone dying or ask someone to resign?
5. How important is the judicial branch in our system? Why?
Sunday, October 30, 2011
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Federalist 78
Questions
1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court justices serving for a life-time? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that judges should decide a case based on solely the Constitution or on their own beliefs as well?
3. Why did you believe the judiciary branch was the weakest of the three?
4. What do you think of the judiciary branch now?
5. Do you or did you think the judiciary branch will or has become stronger over the years?
Quotes
1. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
This shows he believed that the judges should decide a case based on the Consitution.
2. "For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."'
This shows Madison agreeing on our current system or separation of powers.
3."The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."
This shows that judges serve for a life-time. He states that as long as they do not do anything wrong that a life-time is appropriate.
4. "It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two."
This shows how Madison believed that the judiciary branch will be the weakest and not gain a lot of power.
5. "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
This shows that judges should base their ruling off of the constitution and not their own beliefs.
1. Do you agree with the Supreme Court justices serving for a life-time? Why or why not?
2. Do you think that judges should decide a case based on solely the Constitution or on their own beliefs as well?
3. Why did you believe the judiciary branch was the weakest of the three?
4. What do you think of the judiciary branch now?
5. Do you or did you think the judiciary branch will or has become stronger over the years?
Quotes
1. "They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental."
This shows he believed that the judges should decide a case based on the Consitution.
2. "For I agree, that 'there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."'
This shows Madison agreeing on our current system or separation of powers.
3."The standard of good behavior for the continuance in office of the judicial magistracy, is certainly one of the most valuable of the modern improvements in the practice of government."
This shows that judges serve for a life-time. He states that as long as they do not do anything wrong that a life-time is appropriate.
4. "It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two."
This shows how Madison believed that the judiciary branch will be the weakest and not gain a lot of power.
5. "The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body."
This shows that judges should base their ruling off of the constitution and not their own beliefs.
Thursday, October 27, 2011
2000 Election Reading #2
Facts/Details
1. Bush vs. Gore was decided under the Rehnquist Court
2. The Court's vote was 5-4
3. Bush v Gore was the 4th intervention, by the US Supreme Courth, in the litigation over the outcome of the presidential election
4. On November 13, Katharine Harris announced that the deadline of November 14 was final.
5. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4-3, that a manual recount was required by state law.
6. Six justices were unwilling to accent Bush's major submission to the effect that the Florida Supreme Court had produced an unacceptable change in Florida law
7. Minimalism was on full display in the courts two rulings during the election.
8. The Court's decision lacked any basis in precedent.
Questions
1. Did Washington ever consider making the voting process nationalized? Why or why not?
2. Why couldn't they recount or revote?
3. Have they made a new way to completely avoid this from happening again or found a way to deal with this in the future?
4. Would the decision of the recount been changed if the justices political views were different?
5. Was the decision of the Supreme Court more difficult since there was no precedent? Why or why not?
6. What is minimalism in regards to government?
1. Bush vs. Gore was decided under the Rehnquist Court
2. The Court's vote was 5-4
3. Bush v Gore was the 4th intervention, by the US Supreme Courth, in the litigation over the outcome of the presidential election
4. On November 13, Katharine Harris announced that the deadline of November 14 was final.
5. On December 8, the Florida Supreme Court ruled, by a vote of 4-3, that a manual recount was required by state law.
6. Six justices were unwilling to accent Bush's major submission to the effect that the Florida Supreme Court had produced an unacceptable change in Florida law
7. Minimalism was on full display in the courts two rulings during the election.
8. The Court's decision lacked any basis in precedent.
Questions
1. Did Washington ever consider making the voting process nationalized? Why or why not?
2. Why couldn't they recount or revote?
3. Have they made a new way to completely avoid this from happening again or found a way to deal with this in the future?
4. Would the decision of the recount been changed if the justices political views were different?
5. Was the decision of the Supreme Court more difficult since there was no precedent? Why or why not?
6. What is minimalism in regards to government?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Common Good
This article related directly to my Health Care posts of last week. In my posts I discussed who would pay for health care and why this method would be unfair at times. In the article they discuss the cons of a common good. One of these cons included the “free-rider problem.” This problem is when the common good provides for all even for all those who choose not to do their part. In relation to health care, these would not be the people who could not get jobs but the people who refused and were lazy to even try.
After researching health care and reading this article, I think common good is almost impossible to reach. Many people have different morals or beliefs which blocks a common good from being established. There are too many obstacles to find and keep a common good with our country. Although I believe a common good could unite the nation, it just does not seem realistic to me.
Lastly, in regards to Madison, I think his idea of factions would hinder the idea of a common good. Since these groups have separate beliefs, common good would be nearly impossible to agree on.
After researching health care and reading this article, I think common good is almost impossible to reach. Many people have different morals or beliefs which blocks a common good from being established. There are too many obstacles to find and keep a common good with our country. Although I believe a common good could unite the nation, it just does not seem realistic to me.
Lastly, in regards to Madison, I think his idea of factions would hinder the idea of a common good. Since these groups have separate beliefs, common good would be nearly impossible to agree on.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Politician Update #2
Mike McIntyre
Voting Record:
Mike McIntyre missed 211 (2%) of 10,162 roll call votes since Jan 7, 1997.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 53 bills since Jan 7, 1997 of which 48 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 1,783 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
Voting Record:
Mike McIntyre missed 211 (2%) of 10,162 roll call votes since Jan 7, 1997.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 53 bills since Jan 7, 1997 of which 48 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 1,783 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3ah112-2477&action=add&elemid=monbtn_4', 'monbtn_4')){kind=link}
Friday, October 21, 2011
Health Care #2
After researching more, I realized a big question relating to health care was if everyone should receive the same health care. This would be a great thing for our country’s unity; however this cannot happen with how people are today. Some people work hard for their healthcare and others do not. This causes great controversy.
Some work long hard hours for health care. Some try to find long hard hours to work but have no luck. And some don’t try at all. These people who do not try are the reason today’s health care should not be standard for all people. These lazy people do not deserve the health care that people who work or try to work deserve.
So how do we determine who deserves health care? There really isn’t an answer for this right now which is why there are many debates about health care. There is no fair way to deal with this problem.
This idea of working for health care relates to my last post on health care about money. Would it be fair if people who work hard all their lives to pay higher taxes for health care that the lazy people without jobs paying nothing? There needs to be a line drawn between can’t get a job to not trying for a job. We need to determine how to do this. WithAmerica
Some work long hard hours for health care. Some try to find long hard hours to work but have no luck. And some don’t try at all. These people who do not try are the reason today’s health care should not be standard for all people. These lazy people do not deserve the health care that people who work or try to work deserve.
So how do we determine who deserves health care? There really isn’t an answer for this right now which is why there are many debates about health care. There is no fair way to deal with this problem.
This idea of working for health care relates to my last post on health care about money. Would it be fair if people who work hard all their lives to pay higher taxes for health care that the lazy people without jobs paying nothing? There needs to be a line drawn between can’t get a job to not trying for a job. We need to determine how to do this. With
Thursday, October 20, 2011
2000 Election Reading
Pre-Reading Questions
1. How do you determine if a recount is needed?
2. Has the candidate with the majority votes, ever lost the election or was this the first time?
3. Was there tension within the two Presidents during or after the recount?
4. Hope long does it take for an actual recount?
5. What is a butterfly ballot?
Facts/Details
1. Counting the 2000 election, there has been four elections in which the winning candidate received fewer popular votes than his opponent.
2. The election was ended by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.
3. 20,000 voters were legally disqualified
4. The butterfly ballot was where candidates names are in two columns and punch holes are in the middle which was use in Palm Beach.
5. The case of Romer vs. Evans created special voting rights for homosexuals.
Post-Reading Questions
1. What can or has government done to prevent this from happening again?
2. Why did the Supreme Court get involved?
3. Was it right that the Supreme Court got involved or should it have been left to the states?
4. How did they determine what counties to recount?
5. Should voting processes be nationalized or at least standard within a state?
1. How do you determine if a recount is needed?
2. Has the candidate with the majority votes, ever lost the election or was this the first time?
3. Was there tension within the two Presidents during or after the recount?
4. Hope long does it take for an actual recount?
5. What is a butterfly ballot?
Facts/Details
1. Counting the 2000 election, there has been four elections in which the winning candidate received fewer popular votes than his opponent.
2. The election was ended by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court.
3. 20,000 voters were legally disqualified
4. The butterfly ballot was where candidates names are in two columns and punch holes are in the middle which was use in Palm Beach.
5. The case of Romer vs. Evans created special voting rights for homosexuals.
Post-Reading Questions
1. What can or has government done to prevent this from happening again?
2. Why did the Supreme Court get involved?
3. Was it right that the Supreme Court got involved or should it have been left to the states?
4. How did they determine what counties to recount?
5. Should voting processes be nationalized or at least standard within a state?
Tuesday, October 18, 2011
Recount Film
Questions
1. How does this 'close call' not happen more often if they continue to assume?
2. Do they ever have to recount all states? Why or why not?
3. What does concede mean in government?
4. Has any other election come this close?
5. How will they get the recount done in 6 days?
6. Was Al Gore wrong from choosing most Democratic areas?
7. What is the 'butterfly ballot'?
8. Could Gore have actually won if the recount was extended more?
9. Do you think dimples or other confusing ballots should be counted?
Facts/Details
1. Bush beat Gore by 0.03%
2. While care reviewed, recounts must stop
3. Two limited recounts were ordered: one requested by Al Gore, and the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court
4. The two recounts were short-circuited by Florida county and state election officials and by the U.S. Supreme Court
5. Bush won when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, agreed with his lawyers' contention that the counting should end.
6. Florida had to examine175,010 ballots in 67 counties
7. In response to this confusing election of 2000, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 was established.
8. It took 36 days to decide a winner.
1. How does this 'close call' not happen more often if they continue to assume?
2. Do they ever have to recount all states? Why or why not?
3. What does concede mean in government?
4. Has any other election come this close?
5. How will they get the recount done in 6 days?
6. Was Al Gore wrong from choosing most Democratic areas?
7. What is the 'butterfly ballot'?
8. Could Gore have actually won if the recount was extended more?
9. Do you think dimples or other confusing ballots should be counted?
Facts/Details
1. Bush beat Gore by 0.03%
2. While care reviewed, recounts must stop
3. Two limited recounts were ordered: one requested by Al Gore, and the other ordered by the Florida Supreme Court
4. The two recounts were short-circuited by Florida county and state election officials and by the U.S. Supreme Court
5. Bush won when the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, agreed with his lawyers' contention that the counting should end.
6. Florida had to examine175,010 ballots in 67 counties
7. In response to this confusing election of 2000, the Help America Vote Act of 2002 was established.
8. It took 36 days to decide a winner.
Above is a picture of a newpaper showing the close election.
Health Care #1
I honestly was not aware that health care was such an issue until taking this government class. After learning and researching about our country’s health care, I was amazed to see how important health care really is and the outstanding number of people uninsured today. The first thing I researched and informed myself of was the Health Care Bill of 2010.
The number one issue of this bill that comes to my mind with health care is the cost. How will we determine who will pay for this? It is expected that within the first 10 years the cost will be over $940 billion. That’s a lot of money! Washington says the money will be provided by new taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare.
First off, Washington says that there will be higher Medicare tax on the rich people. Starting in January of 2013, the rich should be expecting much higher taxes. Is this fair? Should the rich be paying for the jobless? Secondly, there will be new tax on expensive health insurance. I don’t quite understand what is taxed but it is said that it will be in effect in 2018 and bring in over $32 billion dollars in the first two years. And also, there will be fees on health care industries. Obama believes that this is only fair due to the fact these companies will be getting a lot of new customers. Another tax that interested me was the tanning tax. Washington wants to establish a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning. I wonder what caused this idea.
So with all of this being said, is the place where the money is coming from fair? Is everyone being affected by this? Since, I don’t know much about health care and how it is affecting our country I cannot pose my opinion on how fair Washington is being. After more research with next blog post, I think I will be able to develop an opinion on today health care issue.
The number one issue of this bill that comes to my mind with health care is the cost. How will we determine who will pay for this? It is expected that within the first 10 years the cost will be over $940 billion. That’s a lot of money! Washington says the money will be provided by new taxes, fees on industries involved in health care, and cuts in projected spending growth for existing government health efforts, primarily Medicare.
First off, Washington says that there will be higher Medicare tax on the rich people. Starting in January of 2013, the rich should be expecting much higher taxes. Is this fair? Should the rich be paying for the jobless? Secondly, there will be new tax on expensive health insurance. I don’t quite understand what is taxed but it is said that it will be in effect in 2018 and bring in over $32 billion dollars in the first two years. And also, there will be fees on health care industries. Obama believes that this is only fair due to the fact these companies will be getting a lot of new customers. Another tax that interested me was the tanning tax. Washington wants to establish a 10 percent tax on indoor tanning. I wonder what caused this idea.
So with all of this being said, is the place where the money is coming from fair? Is everyone being affected by this? Since, I don’t know much about health care and how it is affecting our country I cannot pose my opinion on how fair Washington is being. After more research with next blog post, I think I will be able to develop an opinion on today health care issue.
Politician Update
Bob Casey
Voting Record:
Robert Casey missed 4 (0%) of 1,518 roll call votes since Jan 8, 2007.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 174 bills since Jan 4, 2007 of which 170 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 730 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
Voting Record:
Robert Casey missed 4 (0%) of 1,518 roll call votes since Jan 8, 2007.
Bill Sponsorship & Cosponsorship
- sponsored 174 bills since Jan 4, 2007 of which 170 haven't made it out of committee and none were successfully enacted.
- co-sponsored 730 bills during the same time period.
Most Recent Sponsored Bills
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1239&action=add&elemid=monbtn_3', 'monbtn_3')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-958&action=add&elemid=monbtn_4', 'monbtn_4')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1623&action=add&elemid=monbtn_5', 'monbtn_5')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1614&action=add&elemid=monbtn_6', 'monbtn_6')){kind=link}
;SetInnerHTMLFromAjaxResponse('/users/ajax_addmonitor_icon.xpd?monitor=bill%3as112-1565&action=add&elemid=monbtn_7', 'monbtn_7')){kind=link}
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Faction
Madison's Definition
A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Anaylsis
These factions that Madison talked about a lot in Federalist 10 were the new political parties or groups that the Costitution called for. He thought factions would enable women and minorities to have more of a say. These factions were grouped by common interest and ideas. Madison felt that these factions would allow more people to have a say and not one group would become more powerful working like our checks and balance system.
Questions
1. Do factions hurt our government today?
2. Why did he chose the word 'faction'?
3. Who do you think benefits from faction?
4. How are new factions formed?
5. If needed, how can we get rid of factions?
My Definition
Faction: a group of people within a larger group united by mostly the same opinions, interests, and goals
Factions Today
I believe that factions still play a part today such as the Republican, Democratic, and other parties. Sometimes these parties disagree and have opposing opinions on many ideas so these group of people work together to defend themselves against one another.
A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
Anaylsis
These factions that Madison talked about a lot in Federalist 10 were the new political parties or groups that the Costitution called for. He thought factions would enable women and minorities to have more of a say. These factions were grouped by common interest and ideas. Madison felt that these factions would allow more people to have a say and not one group would become more powerful working like our checks and balance system.
Questions
1. Do factions hurt our government today?
2. Why did he chose the word 'faction'?
3. Who do you think benefits from faction?
4. How are new factions formed?
5. If needed, how can we get rid of factions?
My Definition
Faction: a group of people within a larger group united by mostly the same opinions, interests, and goals
Factions Today
I believe that factions still play a part today such as the Republican, Democratic, and other parties. Sometimes these parties disagree and have opposing opinions on many ideas so these group of people work together to defend themselves against one another.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Members of Congress
Local Representative:Bob Casey
Democrat
Senator of Pennsylvania
Member of Congress:
Mike McIntyre
Democrat
Representative (North Carolina)
Political Ideology
My results of this survey was related to both Democratic and Republican Parties. I, however, consider myself a Democrat. I was given two Democrats in the House of Representatives that share my ideology.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Federalist Program
Details/Facts
1. Endangered Species Act (1973)- wolves were first to be restored
2. Idaho objected and though they should decide if the wolves should be restored; they felt threatened
3. They had no choice and were forced to make own laws to protect these species
4. 40% of crashes/deaths are cause by drunk drivers
5. Only 2 states including North Carolina objected a standard national blood alcohol level
6. .10 blood alcohol level compromise but can be challenged ( most states wanted .08)
7. Devolution- power shifts to states from national level
8. Clinton tried to shift social welfare to the stats since nothing was working to reduce poverty
9. National government gave states money to set up a plan and make decisions on welfare.
10. Stick approach- states must do what government says or else state funds would be set back
Questions
1. Should the citizens have a say in the Endangered Species restore?
2. Did people in Idaho ever consider moving to get away from the wolves?
3. If they do what Washington asked, will they really be awarded?
4. Should there be a Natioanl Blood Alcohol level? Why would one disagree?
5. When does the power shift to the states? Who decides?
6. How do the people react to the shift?
7. Is it ethical to "bribe" states?
8. What should be done by states and what should be done the national government?
9. Is there a state that is considered to have "the most" poor people?
10. What made government decide to suddenly help the poor?
1. Endangered Species Act (1973)- wolves were first to be restored
2. Idaho objected and though they should decide if the wolves should be restored; they felt threatened
3. They had no choice and were forced to make own laws to protect these species
4. 40% of crashes/deaths are cause by drunk drivers
5. Only 2 states including North Carolina objected a standard national blood alcohol level
6. .10 blood alcohol level compromise but can be challenged ( most states wanted .08)
7. Devolution- power shifts to states from national level
8. Clinton tried to shift social welfare to the stats since nothing was working to reduce poverty
9. National government gave states money to set up a plan and make decisions on welfare.
10. Stick approach- states must do what government says or else state funds would be set back
Questions
1. Should the citizens have a say in the Endangered Species restore?
2. Did people in Idaho ever consider moving to get away from the wolves?
3. If they do what Washington asked, will they really be awarded?
4. Should there be a Natioanl Blood Alcohol level? Why would one disagree?
5. When does the power shift to the states? Who decides?
6. How do the people react to the shift?
7. Is it ethical to "bribe" states?
8. What should be done by states and what should be done the national government?
9. Is there a state that is considered to have "the most" poor people?
10. What made government decide to suddenly help the poor?
Thursday, October 6, 2011
Constitution Questions
1. Do you think it is good that the articles and amendments are written vaguely or should they be more specific?
I think that the Founding Fathers should have been more specific. I believe if they were more specific there wouldn't be as much controversy as there is today. Our country is based off this document and if it were more specific there would be less confusion. It also would not require any interpretations minimizing conflicts regarding laws. Lastly, a tenth amendment would not be necessary if it were to be more specific because the lines between state and natioanl governments would be clearly drawn and no implied laws would be present.
2. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?
I'm not exactly sure what the founding fathers intended but I'm sure they planned on keeping this document around for a long time. I do however think they did expect it to be revised overtime due to the fact that their laws were very vaguely written. I also argue that they couldn't expect this document to stay the same as time changes. I think they expected the framing of the Constitution to last until today but would expect slight changes to be made as necessary.
I think that the Founding Fathers should have been more specific. I believe if they were more specific there wouldn't be as much controversy as there is today. Our country is based off this document and if it were more specific there would be less confusion. It also would not require any interpretations minimizing conflicts regarding laws. Lastly, a tenth amendment would not be necessary if it were to be more specific because the lines between state and natioanl governments would be clearly drawn and no implied laws would be present.
2. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?
I'm not exactly sure what the founding fathers intended but I'm sure they planned on keeping this document around for a long time. I do however think they did expect it to be revised overtime due to the fact that their laws were very vaguely written. I also argue that they couldn't expect this document to stay the same as time changes. I think they expected the framing of the Constitution to last until today but would expect slight changes to be made as necessary.
Federalist 10
Questions
1. Is it good for our government that everyone has a different opinion?
2. What is the difference between the two republics?
3. Why do you think political parties create factions?
4. How can we get rid of factions?
5. Why are both papers written to the People of the State of New York?
Quotes
1. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
3. "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
I picked this quote because this is shows how greedy people are with power. People naturally want to have the power, and it must be controlled so that people can not abuse the power they have.
4. "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
I picked this quote because it shows how our system which has a small representative group is most sucessful.
5. "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other."
I picked this quote because it relates to my question about peoples opinions interferring with government and other subjects.
1. Is it good for our government that everyone has a different opinion?
2. What is the difference between the two republics?
3. Why do you think political parties create factions?
4. How can we get rid of factions?
5. Why are both papers written to the People of the State of New York?
Quotes
1. "Among the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction."
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
I picked this quote because it addresses the main point of the Federalist paper which is to control and break factions.
2. "Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires."
I picked this quote because it shows an analogy between the relationship of liberty to a faction which is a main topic of this paper.
3. "It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government."
I picked this quote because this is shows how greedy people are with power. People naturally want to have the power, and it must be controlled so that people can not abuse the power they have.
4. "The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended."
I picked this quote because it shows how our system which has a small representative group is most sucessful.
5. "As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other."
I picked this quote because it relates to my question about peoples opinions interferring with government and other subjects.
Federalist 51
Questions
1. Why does the choecks and blanaces need "furnishing"?
2. Do you favor the rest of the Constitution?
3. Are you saying the branches should work separately and not communicate?
4. Why should the legislative authority dominate?
5. Why is Checks and Balances so important?
Quotes
1. "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 picked this quote because it makes it clear that separation of powers are very important to the branches.
2. "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
I picked this quote because it shows that the majority could outdo the minority if nothing is done to prevent it.
3. "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states."
I picked this quote because it illustrates how important a national government is.
4. "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
I picked this quote because this illustrates popular sovereignty that the governments power comes from the people.
5. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
I picked this quote because it confused me. I know it proves that government is necessary but why would Madison state this?
1. Why does the choecks and blanaces need "furnishing"?
2. Do you favor the rest of the Constitution?
3. Are you saying the branches should work separately and not communicate?
4. Why should the legislative authority dominate?
5. Why is Checks and Balances so important?
Quotes
1. "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 picked this quote because it makes it clear that separation of powers are very important to the branches.
2. "If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."
I picked this quote because it shows that the majority could outdo the minority if nothing is done to prevent it.
3. "The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states."
I picked this quote because it illustrates how important a national government is.
4. "You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
I picked this quote because this illustrates popular sovereignty that the governments power comes from the people.
5. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary."
I picked this quote because it confused me. I know it proves that government is necessary but why would Madison state this?
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Politcal Cartoon 2
1. What is depicted in this political cartoon?
2. What is the significance of each persons facial expressions?
3. Do you agree or disagree with this cartoon? Why or why not?
Simile/Metaphor
Metaphor for the American system of separation of powers and Checks and Balances.
The American system of separation of powers and Checks and Balances is like a volleyball game. The National Volleyball Association makes the rules as does the legislative branch, the coaches enforce the rules as does the executive branch, and the officials judge the rules as does the judicial branch. These rules made and carried out are just like the laws these branches use. All three of these groups need to work together to have stable and sucessful game.
The American system of separation of powers and Checks and Balances is like a volleyball game. The National Volleyball Association makes the rules as does the legislative branch, the coaches enforce the rules as does the executive branch, and the officials judge the rules as does the judicial branch. These rules made and carried out are just like the laws these branches use. All three of these groups need to work together to have stable and sucessful game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)