Assignment for 12/6/14

"The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages."- Loving V. Virginia

This quote is basically pointing out on how before, and interracial marriage was considered illegal.  There was once a law in where people of other laces weren't allowed to marry one another,  and if there were ever such a case both individuals would have been charged and sent to jail.  It is odd to think of this happening in our society, however it was not that long ago.  I think the main point to consider here is on how the marriage of two people, a marriage that did not involve any third member, was thought to be illegal.  The idea is absurd but it is as of today still an issue.

This case was important because I think this can be a mark of a milestone of progress.  This case to many of us today seems not much of a case because we see interracial couples everywhere.  However it is important to understand that this once was a problem for the government and society.  This case is very common to the one today having to do with same sex couples.  Like the case of Loving, there have been many cases in where same sex couples have been wanted to be married under the law,  however the government does not allow for such actions in all states.  And so now we touch upon this case in where a country that is supposed to promote the right to happiness is actually going against that notion.  We have talked in class of how the country is supposed to be a so called democracy.  However this country more than often goes against the constitution and of what it is supposed to stand for.  I found it interesting that it almost seems like history is repeating itself, and as time goes on the less democratic we become.

Assignment 11/22

     "To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge--to convert our good words into good deeds--in a new alliance for progress--to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house."

This part of the speech basically speaks of how America is going to stay free from communist influences and they hope that the bordering countries will do so as well. It starts off with a peaceful enough beginning, however it continues to in a nicer or more washed out declare of war.  The way in which JFK presented it was as supporting those in need of help and a revolution for those who have suffered in the hands of poverty.  In this passage he seems to try and get the alliance of other countries in joining the United States' fight against communism.

This passage to me showed the way in which politicians romanticized war.  Though I think JFK was probably very passive about the whole ideal of war, he still supported the United States in this war of communism and capitalism.  He tried romanticizing this whole idea of wasting money and time on what he called a revolution.  However he contradicted himself, and even though the speech that he presented was very inspiring there was still a aggressive attitude.  He still had that mentality that if the United States didn't do anything, then the neighboring countries would soon convert to communist.  It's reasonable however to have that fear at that time, because even today there are remains if that same fear.  I thought this was a good passage because I felt that in parts he contradicted himself, which often politicians do.

Assignment 11/8

"The Poor law was an aid, not a menace, to capitalism, because it relieved industry of all social responsibility outside the contract of employment..."
Citizenship and Social Class by T.H. Marshall, page 4.

        This quote is basically explaining the idea of how the poor law, which had been a thing in England benefited the industry more than the people.  The Poor law in Marshall's view allowed the industry to rid themselves of social responsibility, in which he doesn't go into depth however one can guess as to why it gave an advantage to the capitalist system.  Capitalism has the Idea that whoever works more gains more.  With a small background knowledge of the "poor law" one can see as to why it gave aid to capitalism.  The first mention of poor laws in England was the movement in where the wage for laborers was raised due to the low amount of population in England, food prices were also lowered.  This served as an initiative to raise England's population therefore increasing the labor force; in it's way creating competition and aiding capitalism.  Though Marshall doesn't mention the depth and history of such laws, it is almost obvious how such laws aid the industry, even in our  society.  
 

        I chose this quote because i found it interesting that he would point this out.  In the United States a large fraction of the population tends to have the attitude that goes against the social standards.  It is a common trend to see young and even some older people have a negative view towards "the man", which often refers to the wealthy and or government.  Today's society recognizes the social inequalities that have been accumulating since the early years of the United States.  And so this quote I thought represented a very common view of many people in the U.S., that in no way is wrong.  I think that as people we expect the government to have the people's best interest, but that is often not the case.  Take for example higher education, it became a thing not because we thought it important to educate citizens for the sake of education, but because it was becoming a requirement for jobs.  It can even be seen today that people are going to college for the sake of being able to find a job in the further future, and so the roots of what we think to be social rights is in reality demands by the industry.  I think that this topic is in philosophical terms and issue, because in a sense we are not free and the industry has a larger power on us than we think.

Assignment 10/25/14

"...it seems likely that both the degree of party competition and a state's system of legislative apportionment would affect its readiness to ac- cept change. It would seem that parties which often faced closely contested elections would try to out-do each other by embracing the newest, most progressive programs and this would naturally encourage the rapid adoption of innovations."- page 885, The American Political Science Review, Jack L. walker

This passage is basically pointing out on how the possible reason as to why certain states are more innovative that others is because the political parties have stayed constant, as to when there is competition there seems to be more encouragement and pressure for politicians to do innovative things.  Each political party would try to out-do one another and offer different ideas which can be a good thing for the country since it would offer choices.  In this way it would encourage for people and politicians to become faster adopted to innovation.

I chose this passage because I thought it was a very valid reason as to why innovation happens and also because I have noticed the different approaches that the politicians running for governor use.  If one looks at the websites of the candidates one can see the difference in approaches.  It seems that the present governor, (Cuomo) seems to be taking a more laid back approach towards the elections that are to come, and his opponent (Astorino) takes an approach that is more on the offense side.  Cuomo seems to be looking for more supporters, making use of his history to show possible voters of what he has done and is capable of doings, as for Astorino he is criticizing the actions of Cuomo, Astorino is attempting to use opposers of Cuomo and turn them into his supporters.  Overall I found it interesting because it is something relevant at the time, and I think it can go both ways, we can either stay and make progressive adoptions to more innovative ideas, or we can switch and backtrack, it is a vise versa thing.  I just found it very relevant.

Assignment 10/4

"The First Federal Congress rewrote and consolidated the amendments Madison proposed. These framers had no idea how important the amendments would become. Nor did they, or anyone else at the time, call the 12 amendments Congress proposed in September 1789 or the 10 the states ratified by the end of 1791 a “Bill of Rights.” That came later. Much later." -"Revisiting the Constitution: Rewriting the First Amendment."

     This piece basically points out how much of the constitution was written without the thought that they would be come fundamental in the every day lives of Americans.  The authors point is to kind of outline the importance revisions some things, since on her view there was not enough thought out behind the amendments.  She points out on how the constitution was a thing that was taken from some people who didn't consider the importance of the said amendments.
   
     I chose this piece because to me it seems kind of silly for her to say such things. Thought I have to agree that such amendments didn't take upon the modern world, I don't think they didn't consider the possibility of these becoming important bases for the United States.  I think that there are certain things that need to be updated in the constitution, however one cannot simply dismiss the importance of the basic amendments.   There needs to be some point of intersection in where we don't completely dismiss the original ideas, but that we do moderate them.  However they have to be relevant to today's problems.  We cannot simply change something because we want, if something is working it should be left alone.  In conclusion I don't exactly agree with her point of view, and her idea slightly unnecessary.

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.