12/18/14- Olsen- Chapter 1

"Notice that the interests that all of these diverse types of organizations are expected to further are for the most part common interests: the union members' common interest in higher wages, the farmers' common interest in favorable legislation, the cartel members' common interest in higher prices, the stockholders' common interest in higher dividends and stock prices, the citizens' common interest in good government. It is not an accident that the diverse types of organizations listed are all supposed to work primarily for the common interests of their members. Purely personal or individual interests can be advanced, and usually advanced most efficiently, by individual, unorganized action. There is obviously no purpose in having an organization when individual, unorganized action can serve the interests of the individual as well as or better than an organization: there would, for example, be no point in forming an organization simply to play solitaire."

   What this excerpt from the article is stating is how there is a single purpose to an organization, and that is only interest. It is stated in this paragraph as; union members wanting higher wages, and farmers wanting favorable legislation. The point of forming an organization is because of individual's personal requests, and that the only way that an organization would be developed is if unorganized action would be taken. In order to develop certain new laws that would benefit citizens, there must be an organization formed that would assist its own cause, rather than taking unorganized action to "benefit" a single individual, rather than the goal of the organization itself. 

The reason as to why I chose this paragraph is because, today in modern times, there are issues regarding representation in government, wages, and even rights to a certain group. Many have been denied these rights but when worked in large numbers by creating organizations, a certain action can be accomplished. I believe that with the assistance of many other looking upon a same concept, any goal can be accomplished, that is the reason as to why I chose this paragraph. 

Marbury vs. Madison (1803) - 12/5/14 HW

"Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a remedy."

Prior to the Marbury vs Madison court case of 1803, President John Adams issued; "forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia." This was so that the federalist party would have more of a long-lasting effect on the government if given Judiciary Power. Thomas Jefferson, an Anti-Federalist, decided to hold off the appointments to the 42 judges, by telling Secretary of State: James Madison to cease the process. Marbury being disappointed, decided to go against Madison in a trial which would change the structure of government for good, by solidifying the checks and balances. Although Marbury had trouble attaining this position as a justice of peace, the allows Madison the right to a remedy giving him a position in the judicial court. This was so the idea of "Civil Liberty" was protected and that anyone would be given a remedy due to poor performance of a duty assigned by law.

The reason as to why I chose this passage, is because the thought of having a remedy, or a "second chance" intrigues me. This was a court case that justified the system of checks and balances in which the supreme court can determine an act to be unconstitutional. This issue is currently happening in some places around America in which people are restricted of their own liberty due to the poor performance of a duty within a law or act. This concept of "Judicial review" is very interesting, and it brings more balance to the government and the system in which it operates. The Marbury vs. Madison court case helped establish that. 

11/18

"The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe--the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of God."

What this passage from John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Address is explaining is how in today's modern society, humans have the power to do many things, and change civilization itself, yet we can't maintain the belief in which every individual has natural rights. Our country was built on the grounds in which naturally every single person had their own rights, and those rights are never supposed to be taken away by state. Many are facing this issue, and JFK wanted to prove that if we, as humans, have the power to fix issues happening around the world, then we should also be able to allow every citizen to have the inalienable rights they deserve. Many are getting this privilege taken away, and it is a global issue.

  The reason as to why I chose this specific passage is because, today in many different countries there are efforts being made to resolve issues such as poverty or illnesses, but are they resolving the natural rights of Citizens? What's the point of making an effort if the generosity of the state determine the right of man, no one can speak their own mind or take a stand to support a cause. This is a common problem that is happening currently by allowing the rights of individuals to be altered, or taken away based on what the state feels is right. 

11/8- Gerrymandering

"This speaks to the notion that the point of gerrymandering isn't to draw yourself a safe seat but to put your opponents in safe seats by cramming all of their supporters into a small number of districts. This lets you spread your own supporters over a larger number of districts. And the way to do this is to draw outlandishly-shaped districts that bring far-flung geographic areas together."

What this excerpt is trying to explain is how the practice of gerrymandering is a somewhat shifty tactic to get the majority on the side of the political party. What Gerrymandering accomplishes is manipulating boundaries, in which a range containing a majority of the voters are compacted in an area, while the rest of the voters are spread out, meaning the latter party will gain the most votes for the election. It's a dirty tactic, yet it remained effective somehow.

The reason as to why I chose this part of the passage is because in society today during elections, people have to go through bribes, and even lies. It's very surprising that a method like this can be used to win and gain an advantage in elections, spreading out and giving seats to a minority amount, while only waiting to still lose by a landslide against a majority, and this is caused by manipulating boundaries. Gerrymandering is a powerful method that can be used in today's society. 

From:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/05/15/americas-most-gerrymandered-congressional-districts/

11/1 Equal Rights

"Citizenship is a status bestowed on those who are full members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the rights and duties with which the status is endowed. There is no universal principle that determines what those rights and duties shall be, but societies in which citizenship is a developing institution create an image of an ideal citizenship against which achievement can be measured and towards which aspiration can be directed."

   What this quote from the article is trying to state is how the idea of citizenship is the same, yet different.   Certain roles are given to those citizens depending on the country, which is what makes citizenship different, but the idea of equality is the same. Although being part of a community allows you to gain a status of citizenship, and promotes equality, it can also be seen as "-a system of inequality," as Marshall stated in his article. There could be those with opposing principles as citizenship "can be based on a set of ideals, beliefs, and values." A society that is dedicated to working hard on citizenship and equality is the ideal society. 

   The reason as to why I chose this article is because there are societies where citizenship allows equality, but along with the restrictions of their own natural rights. In other words, you could have the same status and become equal with another person, yet both of you could have horrible jobs, or positions. Due to the fact that citizenship can be based on ideals, beliefs, and values, there are also many who oppose the idea depending on the society. 

   

10/25 Civil Disobedience

     "But such is not the state of the case. I say it with a sad sense of the disparity between us. I am not included within the pale of glorious anniversary! Your high independence only reveals the immeasurable distance between us. The blessings in which you, this day, rejoice, are not enjoyed in common.ÑThe rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeathed by your fathers, is shared by you, not by me. The sunlight that brought light and healing to you, has brought stripes and death to me. This Fourth July is yours, not mine. You may rejoice, I must mourn. To drag a man in fetters into the grand illuminated temple of liberty, and call upon him to join you in joyous anthems, were inhuman mockery and sacrilegious irony. Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so, there is a parallel to your conduct. And let me warn you that it is dangerous to copy the example of a nation whose crimes, towering up to heaven, were thrown down by the breath of the Almighty, burying that nation in irrevocable ruin! I can to-day take up the plaintive lament of a peeled and woe-smitten people! "

     What this passage is stating from Frederick Douglass' speech, is that during his time and even leading up to this day independence is still celebrated, but at what cost? During Douglass' lifespan, there were many civil rights issues and he is questioning the structure of the government itself. The foundation of our society rests on the shoulder of the Founding Fathers themselves. As many celebrate their own independence and individuality, they still forget the concept of equality, the basis of a stable government. Frederick even stated in his speech; "Do you mean, citizens, to mock me, by asking me to speak to-day? If so there is a parallel to your conduct." What this quote means is the fact that Douglass has been through separation and unjust laws, only to be given a small opportunity of speech in society? Not only was it agitating that such a mockery existed, but it seemed very fallacious as well to Douglass. 

      The reason as to why I chose this article, is because I believe that inequality still exists and that unfair, or unjust laws make it possible. This also relates to Thoreau's summary of civil morality. During the time of Frederick Douglass, many strayed from the authority that the laws have established upon themselves. I also believe that it is very important to trust your own morality, and disobey unfair rules sometimes, only to show that they are insufficient and degrading. Douglass makes plenty of claims in this passage about the truth of society, and the restrictions it places upon its citizens only to cause "Woe," and "Misery."

The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States

"Other studies, especially in the areas of agriculture and medicine, have also shown organizational size to be a strong correlate of innovation.'6 Given these results from prior studies in other fields we might expect to find that the larger, wealthier states, those with the most developed industrial economies and the largest cities, would have the highest innovation

scores. "

        What this section of the article is trying to explain is how the more wealthy, and largely populated states are able to accept innovations, or "New Ideas," quickly than those of smaller states, or less industrialized areas. This is most likely due to the fact that if an area is extremely wealthy, and has a dense population, then there are many disparate ideas and controversies which allow the state/city itself to go through new innovations, whether it is for education, economics, or society itself. 

        The reason as to why I chose this excerpt from the article, is because I'm interested in the fact that change can differ between states. What I mean by that is how some wealthy states can accept new ideas, methods, etc. while other states can only go through innovations to a certain degree. Regardless of the fact that not all states go through large innovations, I like the idea of wealthy areas, or areas targeted towards medicine and agriculture undergoing innovations because it really benefits the population and I believe that someday many of the states that are currently not going through the process will change themselves.