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.  

Revisiting the Constitution: Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President

"This must, and someday will, change. Opening the door of presidential eligibility to naturalized Americans will redeem the Constitution's grand trajectory, adding a new chapter true to the spirit of the story thus far. The founders promised more equality than had existed in 1775; later amendments brought blacks and women into the fold; and full equality for naturalized Americans is the logical next step." 

 
   Akhil Reed Amar  created the article; "Revisiting the Constitution: Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President," and the message he's trying to send from this excerpt, is how the role of Presidency should be given to anyone who earns their citizenship in America. Everyone is supposed to be seen as equal, and it has been seen that way ever since 1775. Although, if they are restricted from ever becoming a president of the country, then this promise turned out to be fruitless. Akhil created this article, to promote the idea of allowing many other individuals who devoted their own time to become a citizen of the United States of America, to possibly emerge as a President. As he stated, "Opening the door of presidential eligibility to naturalized Americans will redeem the Constitution's grand trajectory, adding a new chapter true to the spirit of the story thus far," this just shows how ideas can expand, and so can equality. 

   The reason as to why I chose this article, is because it spoke out to me in a way in which I can relate. While living in Albania many years ago, I won a lottery and traveled to America because of it. After becoming a citizen in 5 years, I was finally able to live as an official citizen of the United States of America, I always supported this country, and it pains me to still see that many others who work hard to earn their citizenship still cannot have the responsibility of becoming a President, regardless of the fact that they have devoted 5 years of their life to become a citizen. Adding naturalized citizens is the logical next step and it can benefit the nation. 

The Federalist #10

      "By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests."

       James Madison is stating that the Faction is a major concern as it can be used to dissent and overpower the control of the government. Factions can be a major threat due to the fact that they are mentioned to be; "A majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion," and what the quote means is that there is more power in the quantity of people because of their common interests, basically a very large unification. Madison even mentions two methods that could be effective against the current situation; one being to eradicate the source of liberty which is important to them. The other is getting all the citizens who are part of the faction to agree and support a common cause that is beneficial to both the government and the people themselves.

      The reason as to why I chose this excerpt from the "Federalist No. 10" article, is because it depicts the power of many citizens working together to create a possible threat to the government. James Madison even stated that they could be a threat to the government due to the fact that they are unified together under certain causes. This makes me curious, because that can somewhat relate to what is happening in our current society, once citizens find a similar liking they will work together to try and spread it around. One of the methods in controlling the factions is to get everyone to agree on a common cause or interests, this can be related to the government trying to get everyone to agree on a certain issue through news on the T.V, radio, and even websites, allowing them to control. It is an interesting paragraph because it can be related to society today.

Trans-National America

    "We are all of foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born, and if distinctions are to be made between us, they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenous. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting-pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of "giving themselves without reservation" to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted."

    This excerpt from the article by Randolph is supposed to indicate the fact that the previous American melting-pot" idea failed, and that immigrants never really wanted to immerse themselves in American culture, but more likely follow their own culture, and because America gave the opportunity to do so.
It does seem incogitable that many would go far to promise to blend in with American culture, and promise to always support the country, when in reality it is only because they would want to have the freedom to follow and do as they please. It's true that you should look after yourself, and worry about your own future, but you shouldn't forget the country that allowed you to have this freedom. When Randolph compares the situation to that of the colonists he makes a point that everyone came for freedom, but sometimes freedom comes with a cost.

    This passage relates to the truth about what has happened since 1916, and commonly today in society. Freedom, is one of the great aspects of being an American citizen, but not something to take for granted. They have made an oath by becoming a citizen and it is very upsetting to know that they "accept" the promise, when a lot of the time all they really want is access to a better life for themselves, and not for what is surrounding them. A true citizen must support their own country.

Two Faces of Power

"The concept of power remains elusive despite the recent and prolific outpourings of case studies on community power. Its elusiveness is dramatically demonstrated by the regularity of disagreements as to the locus of community power between the sociologists and the political scientists. Sociologically oriented researchers have consistently found the power is highly centralized, while scholars trained in political science have just as regularly concluded that in "their" communities power is widely diffused. Presumably, this explains why the latter group styles itself "pluralist," its counterpart "elitists."

     What this paragraph is trying to encapsulate is the idea that the concept of power is a well-known controversy, yet it is hard to define. The are two groups at hand, one being the "Elitists"who believes that power is centralized, being drawn at one point under the government. While the other group the "Pluralists" believe that power is spread out and controlled by different groups of individuals. Scholars have concluded that the communities that they live in, power is not centralized, but more diffused to the people allowing some sense of "equality."

        The reason as to why I chose this passage, is because the idea that the concept of power can be seen by two different points of views interests me. The fact that two groups see power as either something controlled under one government, or another saying the power is controlled by the people is astounding. This introductory passage just really stands out to me as it introduces a very interesting topic about power and its two faces.