Assignment 9/27

"Immediately after they shall be assembled in Consequence of the first Election, they shall be divided as equally as may be into three Classes. The Seats of the Senators of the first Class shall be vacated at the Expiration of the second Year, of the second Class at the Expiration of the fourth Year, and of the third Class at the Expiration of the sixth Year, so that one third may be chosen every second Year; and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next Meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies."

     This passage mainly describes the way in which the three branches of government work.  And of how they have different ways in which their reelection work.  Also it mentions of  the actions that have to be taken after someone resigns etc.  it doesn't go into much detail but it is a general overview of hue he democracy and rights of the people.  I believe that the way in which everything was set up was to protect the power that each branch had, however one can't help to question if it is unfair the amount of time that the other branches have.

     I found it important to touch upon this article because I believe that it brings forth something peculiar about the government.  If one reads over what the constitution is saying one can see that other branches have a longer time to be in power than the others.  However wouldn't it be more fair to have all branches have the same amount of time in office, rather than to give certain branches a longer time limit?  However contrary to that argument, one can argue that each branch has a different amount of power, and so each deserves a different time limit according to the power that they hold etc.  It just seems that giving a large amount of time to a branch could potentially increase the possibility of corruption, however giving too little time to a branch could also result in no change for the country.  I think the whole topic is something to consider when talking about politics.

Assignment due 9/20

"He sees the new peoples here with a new vision. They are no longer masses of aliens, waiting to be "assimilated," waiting to be melted down into the indistinguishable dough of Anglo-Saxonism. They are rather threads of living and potent cultures, blindly striving to weave themselves into a novel international nation, the first the world has seen. In an Austria-Hungary or a Prussia the stronger of these cultures would be moving almost instinctively to subjugate the weaker. But in America those wills-to-power are turned in a different direction into learning how to live together."

     This passage basically speaks of the nation that America should be, and of how it should no longer be a country in where the majority tries to assimilate the minority.  It describes a nation in where people learn to live within each other's presence.  It describes not exactly a melting pot, but rather a pot in where everyone works with each other in a way that still acknowledges their culture.  The author points out that it is something that has to be learned, and taught.

      I chose this passage because it described a very ideal way to live in harmony with everyone in a country.  I think for a America it is a weird subject to speak of when talking of patriotism, mainly because of the large number of immigrants.  However one cannot simply try and convert an immigrant into a full on American, who lives by the American ways.  For one because there really isn't an American way of living, and also because it is morally wrong to try and rid a person of their origins. Diversity is important for this country, it is a component of the foundations of this country.
 

"A majority (57%) of Americans believe the federal government today has too much power. Most of the rest say the government has about the right amount of power. Few say the government has too little power. Americans were least likely to be concerned about the government's power in the years immediately after 9/11, but half or more since 2005 have said it has too much power."-Frank Newport

      This passage basically points out how recent polls show how a majority if Americans believe that the government has too much power in their hands.  And the rest either believe that the government does not have enough power, and or that it has sufficient or a good amount of power.  It also mentions how after the events of September 9, 2011, people were not as harsh on the government concerning the power that they had.  However a few years after the incident, the poll showed how people were no longer pleased with the amount of power that the government had.  It's important to notice the chronological order in which the data was described in, it can lead to new conclusions.

      I found it important to touch in this passage because if we look at the years in which the polls showed change we can notice an interesting idea.  The author speaks of how Americans weren't very "concerned" of the power that federal government maintained after 9/11; this is important because the years after the event happened, Americans feared for their safety and so they were more likely to be lenient towards power that the government obtained.  Americans were willing to give up some of their "freedom" or "privacy" for exchange of safety that they believed the government would give them.  Recently it seems as if the people who oppose the government's power, are people who feel as if their privacy is being invaded.  After 9/11 happened people didn't feel safe, and so if the government proposed an idea that allowed the government more power, it was more likely for people to agree to it.  However around 2005, 9/11 wasn't as relevant in people's life; people didn't feel comfortable with the power that government had gained over the years.  The whole thing says something about citizens, as well as the government.  When residents feel threatened, they are more likely to surrender power to the government; as for the government, it is more likely to take advantage of the situation and cross boundaries and limits.