Madison's definition: A number of citizens, whether amounting to a minority or majority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
When Madison talks about a faction, I think he is saying a group a people that are united and want the same purpose. There is one thing that they all have in common. As a whole the group of people are allowed to share a common interest, because of the rights that they would be granted from the Constitution. I would say that faction still exist and play a role in the government.
Questions:
1. Is a faction supposed to be a fraction of the people?
2. Does the passion or interest that they share have to be constitutional?
3. Where did the name faction come from
4. Do the citizens have to be American citizens for a certain period of time?
5. Were factions a major part of the Constitution
My Definition: A group of people united by a passion or interest against their rights, or the interest of the community.
Present Role: People in politics who are for the same thing, such as a political party.
Monday, October 17, 2011
response to constitution questions
1. Would the founding fathers agree with the changes made to the Constitution, or do you think they would be disappointed?
I think the founding fathers would be pleased with the changes that have been made to the Constitution. They knew that the country would always be changing, that's why they made the Constitution able to be edited. If we could not change it, we would not be as far along in society as we already are, we would still be living in old days. They might not agree with what we changed, but they would be able to understand our reasoning behind doing it.
2. How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period?
I also like this question because it makes people really think, not only about what the Constitution included, but about the way the citizens of the United States act as a whole. Everyone living in the US follow rules written on a piece of paper by people we never met before. We read about the founding fathers and see pictures of them, but we have never actually talked to them before. This piece of paper keeps our country alive and in order, and it is interesting to see how people follow it. The document has yet to crumple or fail, and I think because it keeps an order in the country, people will follow it. Sometimes people need guidelines to live life by, and the Constitution kind of acts as those guidelines.
Democracy in America
Facts
1. The wolf was one of the first species in the Endangered Species Act
2. Idaho citizens did not want the wolves there
3. Federal restrictions had to be followed for wolves by farmers and other citizens
4. Almost 40% of crashes or deths on highways are because of drunk driving.
5. South Carolina objected to the government's call for a standard number on a breathalizer
6. 0.10 blood alcohol level was finally compromised for South Carolina
7. 0.08 was decided by the government and if it was not passed the government would take away highway funds
8. South Carolina did not like the penalty that would be given if 0.08 was not passed
9. In 2002 a bill was passed in North Carolina that 0.08 was considered as under the influence for drunk driving
10. Michigan provided much support for women moving from welfare to work
Questions
1. Why were wolves introduced to Idaho and not another state like montanta?
2. Were wolves threatening the people of Idaho or just the livestock?
3. Why was South Carolina so against lowering the blood alcohol level for drunk driving?
4. Did South Carolina not realize raising the limit could possibly help save lives?
5. how much are highway funds?
6. iS south carolina always poor?
7. Why did some states not provide as much support for people when moving from welfare to work?
8. Which states have good welfare systems?
9. Why is the south more poor than the rest of America
10.Why is there a different welfare system for different states
1. The wolf was one of the first species in the Endangered Species Act
2. Idaho citizens did not want the wolves there
3. Federal restrictions had to be followed for wolves by farmers and other citizens
4. Almost 40% of crashes or deths on highways are because of drunk driving.
5. South Carolina objected to the government's call for a standard number on a breathalizer
6. 0.10 blood alcohol level was finally compromised for South Carolina
7. 0.08 was decided by the government and if it was not passed the government would take away highway funds
8. South Carolina did not like the penalty that would be given if 0.08 was not passed
9. In 2002 a bill was passed in North Carolina that 0.08 was considered as under the influence for drunk driving
10. Michigan provided much support for women moving from welfare to work
Questions
1. Why were wolves introduced to Idaho and not another state like montanta?
2. Were wolves threatening the people of Idaho or just the livestock?
3. Why was South Carolina so against lowering the blood alcohol level for drunk driving?
4. Did South Carolina not realize raising the limit could possibly help save lives?
5. how much are highway funds?
6. iS south carolina always poor?
7. Why did some states not provide as much support for people when moving from welfare to work?
8. Which states have good welfare systems?
9. Why is the south more poor than the rest of America
10.Why is there a different welfare system for different states
Sunday, October 9, 2011
Responses
1. Did the founding fathers intend for the Constitution to last until today, or did they expect that it would be revised/rewritten?
I believe that they were creating under the impression that it would not be changed. It was a document that would uphold the rules for a whole nation. And although they did not want it to be altered, i think that they left it somewhat vague and with more generalizations than specific situations so that over time it could be interpreted differently.
2. How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period?"
I think that it has only been changed a few times because when it was written, it was written with the intention of upholding order for a whole country no matter what. It is a moral standard to follow and while technology changes, people havnt changed that much. Not many changes have been needed because the founding fathers did a pretty good job of writing rules.
I believe that they were creating under the impression that it would not be changed. It was a document that would uphold the rules for a whole nation. And although they did not want it to be altered, i think that they left it somewhat vague and with more generalizations than specific situations so that over time it could be interpreted differently.
2. How is it that the Constitution has been changed so few times over such a long period?"
I think that it has only been changed a few times because when it was written, it was written with the intention of upholding order for a whole country no matter what. It is a moral standard to follow and while technology changes, people havnt changed that much. Not many changes have been needed because the founding fathers did a pretty good job of writing rules.
Tuesday, October 4, 2011
Federalist papers 51
Why is it so important to split power into three different parts?
Did this work effectively?
Is it good ambition counteracting bad ambition or is it totally different?
Is the government a new state of nature for us?
How does checks and balances work in the three different parts?
Ambition must be made to couteract ambition.
I chose this because it does not seem to make much sense, I'm assuming good ambitions counteracts bad ambition.
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
I chose this quote because its saying how humans have evolved from a state of nature where everything is mayhem to a different state of nature where its organized.
If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
I chose this quote because its saying that the majority vote can make everyone who was once opposed to it, change their minds. I agree with this.
It is evident that each department should have a will of its own.
I chose this because you can see Madison establishing the separation of powers.
Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.
I chose this because it is defining how a representative democracy was formed, the people vote others into office to vote and represent them.
Did this work effectively?
Is it good ambition counteracting bad ambition or is it totally different?
Is the government a new state of nature for us?
How does checks and balances work in the three different parts?
Ambition must be made to couteract ambition.
I chose this because it does not seem to make much sense, I'm assuming good ambitions counteracts bad ambition.
But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?
I chose this quote because its saying how humans have evolved from a state of nature where everything is mayhem to a different state of nature where its organized.
If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
I chose this quote because its saying that the majority vote can make everyone who was once opposed to it, change their minds. I agree with this.
It is evident that each department should have a will of its own.
I chose this because you can see Madison establishing the separation of powers.
Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another.
I chose this because it is defining how a representative democracy was formed, the people vote others into office to vote and represent them.
Federalist papers 10
How can we control factions?
What is the main reason for this government?
Could we distribute property better?
Is having all those different opinions that bad?
Why would Madison kill liberty to destroy a faction even though it is essential to political life?
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other.
I chose this because it shows how if a man is on the right track in his mind then people can do what they want to be happy.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
I chose this quote because it say's we shouldn't judge ourselves because we will always make us win.
The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
I chose this quote because it shows how the protection of property is very important to the government.
Every shilling which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
I chose this quote because it shows how the government can be corrupt when it comes to taxing.
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
I chose this quote because factions are very bad in the development of our society
.
What is the main reason for this government?
Could we distribute property better?
Is having all those different opinions that bad?
Why would Madison kill liberty to destroy a faction even though it is essential to political life?
As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other.
I chose this because it shows how if a man is on the right track in his mind then people can do what they want to be happy.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.
I chose this quote because it say's we shouldn't judge ourselves because we will always make us win.
The diversity in the faculties of men from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
I chose this quote because it shows how the protection of property is very important to the government.
Every shilling which they overburden the inferior number is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
I chose this quote because it shows how the government can be corrupt when it comes to taxing.
Among the numerous advantages promised by a well-constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction.
I chose this quote because factions are very bad in the development of our society
.
Interview chapter 1
After awhile of deliberation i decided to interview my friend Brendan Mckain to see what he knew about the government. When i asked him what government meant to him he said "Government is the group of people that make the decisions for the country and on the country's behalf." I was surprised he had such a decent answer. My next question to him was which political issues he cared about, if any. He said he cared about global warming because it is effecting him directly. He hopes that whoever is elected next will somehow drum up the support needed to fix or slow it down. With that answer i proceeded to the next question which was what he thought about diversity in our country. He said "America is not like any country because when people are from France or Italy, usually they're either French or Italian, but we are the melting pot where all nationalities can live together." I was extremely taken aback by this answer but i agree with it wholeheartedly.
The interview was going along nicely, he was kind of more into it than was necessary but in the end it helped. My next question for him was how government affected his daily life. At first he was not sure, but i prompted him a little just like in our class exercise and he eventually came up with a bunch of reasons the biggest ways being his freedom of speech and public school. I then asked him what he thought about the us having a democracy. He replied that he could not see America being run any other way and that it was the best government. I also agreed with him on that.
The interview was going along nicely, he was kind of more into it than was necessary but in the end it helped. My next question for him was how government affected his daily life. At first he was not sure, but i prompted him a little just like in our class exercise and he eventually came up with a bunch of reasons the biggest ways being his freedom of speech and public school. I then asked him what he thought about the us having a democracy. He replied that he could not see America being run any other way and that it was the best government. I also agreed with him on that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)