"
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.
"
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.
