Over the lecture that consisted of about two days of class, the material that was covered delved into the time starting from the British recognition of an American Nation, to the point in time where America clashes with debt, disorganization, and weakness, in order to remain an independent country.
When the Treaty of Paris (1783), was signed the newly formed United States, faced a great debt which challenged the nation to find a method of reducing that said massive debt, whilst maintaining law over the people. From this struggle to control the people the Articles of Confederation was created, which sadly resulted in a weak federal government at the mercy of the states power. Eventually the people realized how weak the AOT were and soon a "revision" was desired by the government. At this time two factions, the Anti-Federalists, and the Federalists which argued about which part of the government should receive the power, the states or the federal government respectively. This division, caused the Constitution and later the Bill of Rights to have certain attributes about them that contained both ideals of elasticity and stone construction in them. Whilst at the convention to create the Constitution, plans which helped balance power between the states were produced, The New Jersey and Virginia Plan. In addition to that, a balance with the voting rights of respective men in their respective state, 3/5 Compromise. Although these issues were dealt with relatively gracefully and swiftly, the rivalry between Hamilton's party, Federalists, and Jefferson's party, the Anti-Federalists, would continue for a number of years, until Hamilton dies. The two parties bickered about the future of America's economy, an industrial one vs an agrarian one, and bickered even more so when given the question of who controls the power. In short these discrepancies caused the laws created to be variable and appeal to both crowds. Till Jefferson's election in 1800 the parties were at each other's throats and both sides believed that the struggle would erupt into something greater. However through a careful move that leads to a precedent the power shifted from one party to the other peacefully which helped the American Nation truly grow. Which would help them in the next struggle in their second war for independence.
Thursday, September 4, 2014
Violations of the First Amendment: Ferguson, Missouri
Unless you have been living in the Sahara Desert for the last month, you probably have heard about the death of 18-year-old Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri. On August 9, 2014, officer Darren Wilson shot Brown resulting in a large investigation still continuing today. Brown's death sparked numerous protests to follow. Thousands of people have participated in the ongoing protests and marches in Brown's name. Among the protesters, not to anyone's surprise, congregations of the media and press are swarming the streets of Ferguson.
"...the police [emerged], telling us that we had to leave. I pulled my phone out and began recording video. An officer with a large weapon came up to me and said, 'Stop recording.' I said, 'Officer, do I not have the right to record you?' He backed off but told me to hurry up...As I made my way toward the door, the officers gave me conflicting information. One instructed me to exit to my left. As I turned left, another officer emerged, blocking my path. 'Go another way,' he said... I said, 'Officers, let me just gather my bag.' As I did, one of them said, “Okay, let’s take him.” Multiple officers grabbed me" (Lowery, Washington Post).
The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights, see Chapter 10 in our textbook or any government website, states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances" (Cornell University Law School). People of the United States essentially receive the right to freedom of speech, press, religion, assembly, and petition. Although a countless number of things can be considered unconstitutional in the Michael Brown case, limiting the media is a definite violation of our First Amendment.
Police officials have asked several citizens and the media not to record events with cameras and phones. Is this not a direct violation to our freedom of press? A tear-gas canister was fired at an Al Jazeera America TV crew and the camera recorded officers tilting it towards the ground. Another violation is the case of Wesley Lowery of the Washington Post. Lowery, using a nearby McDonald's to charge equipment and work, was detained by police. His account reads:
The following day, Lowery was released with no explanation as to why he was arrested. Why is this a violation? Citizens have the right to document events. The Bill of Rights was written by James Madison to justify what our inalienable rights are. It is crucial that we understand the full extent of our rights to prevent any limitation of our rights in the future. Knowing these valuable amendments helps check the power of our government.
Sources: Washington Post, Cornell University Law School, USA Today, First Amendment Center
Tuesday, September 2, 2014
Another Constitutional Convention?
The last time a constitutional convention was held was in 1787 when the original Constitution was drafted, for all amendments made to the Constitution since then have been adopted by congress. It took place in Philadelphia, and the Constitution it produced was ratified by nine of the thirteen states. Recently, a proposal to host another constitutional convention concerning a possible amendment about the budget has been brought up in Washington D.C. Article V of the Constitution, which concerns how changes to the Constitution ought to be made, states that amendments may be adopted and sent to the states for ratification by a national convention made up of at least two-thirds of the states.
The request for another constitutional convention stems from the desire of several states to curb federal power in regards to the control it yields over the states when it comes to dealing with the deficit. Some conservatives have expressed concern over the constitutional convention because they fear it will be similar to the 1787 convention where the delegates scrapped the old governing document, the Articles of Confederation, and came up with something entirely new. Liberals are more motivated to pursue a constitutional convention, for they are looking to make changes to the Constitution.
The question now becomes, is the constitutional convention a bad idea? On the one hand, unnecessary amendments are unlikely to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, the amount required by Article V for an amendment to be officially added to the Constitution once decided upon by a national convention or Congress. The government also wishes to maintain constitutional controversy for it keeps the public engaged, and decisions can often be influenced without formal amendments being passed. America now has to decide whether or not they are willing to risk having dramatic changes made to the Constitution in order to appease this issue about the budget.
The request for another constitutional convention stems from the desire of several states to curb federal power in regards to the control it yields over the states when it comes to dealing with the deficit. Some conservatives have expressed concern over the constitutional convention because they fear it will be similar to the 1787 convention where the delegates scrapped the old governing document, the Articles of Confederation, and came up with something entirely new. Liberals are more motivated to pursue a constitutional convention, for they are looking to make changes to the Constitution.
The question now becomes, is the constitutional convention a bad idea? On the one hand, unnecessary amendments are unlikely to be ratified by three-fourths of the states, the amount required by Article V for an amendment to be officially added to the Constitution once decided upon by a national convention or Congress. The government also wishes to maintain constitutional controversy for it keeps the public engaged, and decisions can often be influenced without formal amendments being passed. America now has to decide whether or not they are willing to risk having dramatic changes made to the Constitution in order to appease this issue about the budget.
Week 3 Day 1
The Revolution was successful. The minority won. America is independent. But now what? "Forming a Government" was today's main topic, which did its best to answer the question that faced America after 1776: now what? The Articles of Confederation were failing, as flaunted by Shays's Rebellion. First of all, competing ideology prevented a coherent verdict. Many players formed factions, two of the most populist and pertinent being the Federalists (headed by Alexander Hamilton) and the Anti-Federalists (because Americans name things creatively) (led by Thomas Jefferson). The founding fathers got together in 1787 for the Philadelphia Constitutional Convention, and decided to scrap the AOC. After much squabbling and a number of compromises, the Constitution was finally ratified in 1788. These terms for a new government included the Great Compromise (a bicameral legislature, a combination of the Virginia and New Jersey Plans), the 3/5 Compromise (slaves counted as 3/5 of a person) and created three branches of government with a system of checks and balances.
Ok, a Constitution. Now what? People still had questions, which had to be answered, of course. They wondered where the sovereignty lay within a nation. The answer to that was with the people. And because all sovereignty flowed from the people, they gave their power to the states, which gave its power to the federal government, but both of these institutions only had power because the people had given it to them. Additionally, after the Constitution, a Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists, which was basically the first ten amendments outlining the certain rights of the people. Although people had a fear over a centralized government, and the government was unsure of how to rule a land so vast, the government held, as federalization was a necessary evil and the sheer size of America made tyranny less likely.
In the years after the Constitution was established, true political parties began to form. It started with the Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, but later derived into the Federalists vs. Democrat-Republicans. In short, the Federalists were in support of the Constitution, wanted a strong central government, liked an urban and commercial economy, and wanted to be strongly involved in foreign affairs. The Democratic-Republicans wanted a weaker central government and more state sovereignty, like a rural and agrarian nation, and wanted less of a hand in foreign affairs.
Sorry this is so long,
Addie Feldman 9/2/14
Ok, a Constitution. Now what? People still had questions, which had to be answered, of course. They wondered where the sovereignty lay within a nation. The answer to that was with the people. And because all sovereignty flowed from the people, they gave their power to the states, which gave its power to the federal government, but both of these institutions only had power because the people had given it to them. Additionally, after the Constitution, a Bill of Rights was demanded by the Anti-Federalists, which was basically the first ten amendments outlining the certain rights of the people. Although people had a fear over a centralized government, and the government was unsure of how to rule a land so vast, the government held, as federalization was a necessary evil and the sheer size of America made tyranny less likely.
In the years after the Constitution was established, true political parties began to form. It started with the Federalists vs. Anti-Federalists, but later derived into the Federalists vs. Democrat-Republicans. In short, the Federalists were in support of the Constitution, wanted a strong central government, liked an urban and commercial economy, and wanted to be strongly involved in foreign affairs. The Democratic-Republicans wanted a weaker central government and more state sovereignty, like a rural and agrarian nation, and wanted less of a hand in foreign affairs.
Sorry this is so long,
Addie Feldman 9/2/14
Monday, September 1, 2014
Why Does the American Government Work?
In Federalist essay number 10, James Madison is essentially arguing how the American Government can combat the destructiveness of factions in government. In the essay he talks about how a large republic is better than a 'pure democracy' in combating factions.
"Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other."
Madison is arguing that the larger the republic, the less likely factions will become corrupt and take over the government. For example let's say there was a government with 1000 people living in its country, and a government with 10 million people. The government with 1000 people is more likely to become unstable due to factions because of its smaller population. With a smaller population, there will be less parties/interests within its people, with less parties, the majority population could be found in the same party. The American Government is very efficient when it comes to controlling its factions, because of its large population, and diverse parties in government. If a radical faction were to spread its views on government, there is a low chance that everyone would join that party because of our diverse parties and population that can overrule those radical factions.
In Federalist essay number 51, Madison is defending the system of checks and balances: where one branch of government can "check" the other branch so that no individual branch gains significant power and becomes corrupt.
“It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”
Madison is discussing two different things here: the system of checks and balances and the social contract. He argues that the primary purpose of government is to represent the people. Through the social contract he says that the government is to control the governed, but also control themselves so that it doesn't become corrupt. In order to control itself, the system of checks and balances is implemented. The American Government has been able to 1. not become corrupt and 2. represent its people because of this system of checks and balances and the social contract.
"Why does the American form of government work?"
Federalist Paper #10 discusses the threat of factions in a republic. Factions are dangerous to the government because they can dominate it or come to a stale mate and have nothing get done. Despite these fears, James Madison claims that large factions will not pose a threat if "you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other." So basically, it is virtually impossible for one faction to dominate the government because it needs to be both really big, and have each member share a unified agenda. The bigger the faction, the more difficult it is to have everyone share the exact same differences. If there are varied opinions in a faction, there is no way for it force its ideas onto the minority simply because there are so many different ideas and at some point, they must contradict each other. It is because of this idea that the majority rule in the United States has worked effectively while at the same time respecting the rights of the minority.
Madison describes the revolutionary incorporation of the system of checks and balances. Simply put, checks and balances are powers that enable the branches of government to make sure that one of them doesn't become too powerful. This paper also discusses a little on the topic of consent of the governed. Madison states that “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?... In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Essentially, Madison tries to make known that checks and balances are used to make sure that individual branches of the government don't get too powerful. However, if the government itself becomes to powerful, the people have the right to check the government, that is what we know as consent of the governed. The government rules over the people, but only because the people allow it to. In return, the government must adhere to the laws that the people put in place to keep the government honest. These concepts of rule of law, consent of the governed and checks and balances are why the American form of government works so well.
Madison describes the revolutionary incorporation of the system of checks and balances. Simply put, checks and balances are powers that enable the branches of government to make sure that one of them doesn't become too powerful. This paper also discusses a little on the topic of consent of the governed. Madison states that “It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices [checks and balances] should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?... In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.” Essentially, Madison tries to make known that checks and balances are used to make sure that individual branches of the government don't get too powerful. However, if the government itself becomes to powerful, the people have the right to check the government, that is what we know as consent of the governed. The government rules over the people, but only because the people allow it to. In return, the government must adhere to the laws that the people put in place to keep the government honest. These concepts of rule of law, consent of the governed and checks and balances are why the American form of government works so well.
Why the US Government works, from Federalist Papers 10 and 51
#10
In the U.S., there have always been political factions. A major concern throughout United States history is that the factions will not be able to represent and benefit the people properly. Madison says, "It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures." What Madison is saying here is that to have a proper representation of the people, the number of representatives must be properly balanced, so that they fight for their local voter's ideals, but are not too focused on it to hinder progress. He says that the Constitution has found that proper balance.
"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. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State." Another reason Madison gives for the effectiveness of the Constitution is the fact that the United States are divided up and each State is different and has different interests. This helps to keep diversity in they country and makes it so there is no one majority that has massive power.
#51
The U.S. government is divided up into many different branches, each of which have a set set job and responsibility. What makes this government so secure is that each of these branches balance each other out. One cannot gain power over the others and control the whole government.
"In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself." Madison writes that because of these divisions of power, the people have multiple places where their rights are protected. The government's job is to protect the rights of the people, and that includes from themselves
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)