Use our essay title generator to get ideas and recommendations instantly
According to the Constitution of the United States, this nation was founded under the principles of individual freedom and individual voice. America was designed to be a representative government by and for the people; a direct opposite of what the people had experienced when America was a British colony with no say in their government. If this was indeed to be a representative government, why then did the Founding Fathers put so much distrust into the American populous? Many of the processes of government in this nation are designed so that the influence of government people can interfere with the desires of the nation at large. The only logical explanation for this discrepancy is that the Founding Fathers believed in the principles of representative government but did not have faith that the citizens of the United States could make the proper decisions about policy.
It must be noted…… [Read More]
I do not believe his rationale, which stuck to the letter of the law was what the spirit of the writers of the laws of the United States had in mind. I believe that Dred Scott was a person and should have been treated as one and not merely as property. He was free, and went to St. Louis as a free man even voluntary. If he had stayed in Minnesota this case would probably never had been an issue, however I am sure Dred Scott considered himself a free man. In the end though, it did not matter what he considered himself, because he was ruled not even to be a citizen. Furthermore Chief Justice Taney went too far in ruling the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional, as it seems he was almost on a vendetta to increase the spread of slavery and hurt slave rights. But then again, to Chief…… [Read More]
Thus, if liberty encourages factions, the Constitution uses factions to its benefit. Ultimately, the group of Americans who sought independence from Great Britain could be seen as a dangerous faction, especially by those Americans who did not want to split from their mother country. And so, the legislation they created, including the Declaration of Independence could be seen as documents resulting from a faction. While the Constitution attempted to limit factions, those who wrote it certainly constituted a faction, as they were simply a few who represented many. In addition, the southern membership could be called a faction, as they managed to keep any reference to slavery out of the Constitution, amounting to a vicious and dangerous omission that would later lead to Civil War. As Madison notes in the paper, "And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine?" (Madison).…… [Read More]
Federalist Papers, which was initially known as the Federalist, were originally published on October 27, 1787. The first publication of these papers was made in New York press under the title The Federalist, which was later renamed The Federalist Papers in the 20th Century. Generally, The Federalist Papers is a term that refers to a group of 85 articles that were published by various authors including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. They are largely regarded as one of the most significant contributions to the political mindset and process made in the United States ("The Federalist Papers," n.d.). Most of the papers appeared in the form of books in 1788 with an introduction being written by Alexander Hamilton. They were later printed in various editions and translated to various languages and utilized "Publius," a pseudonym for the three men i.e. Hamilton, Madison, and Jay.
The purpose of The Federalist…… [Read More]
authors of the Federalist Papers take for granted that human motives arise from 3 sources: passion, interest and virtue. heir goals regarding the 3 are, PASSION; (1) to prevent passions from being aroused, (2) to keep already aroused passions from having civically harmful effects. INERES; (3) to encourage the development of useful interests, (4) channel interests that already exist in civically useful directions. VIRUE; (5) encourage the development of virtue, (6) put virtue that already exist to good civic use.
(a) List features of Constitution which in their view tend to have effect number (1). Briefly explain why they hold this expectation. Repeat with effects numbers (2), (4) and (6).
Federalist paper no. 10 written by James Madison is commonly accepted as the most influential paper. herefore, this paper is prepared using the definitions of Federalist paper no. 10.
(1) o prevent passions from being aroused
Madison dictates that human…… [Read More]
Federalist papers sought to inspire a nation to generate a sense of identity and freedom not just from the British government and British identity, but also from the notion that the American government is flawed and ineffective. Several federalist papers in particular, discuss how the government should be as well as help deal with some of the fears and desires of the American public. The Federalist papers that will be examined are: 21, 31, 37, and 51. They discuss truths and principles as well as formation of union and preservation of rights and liberties, along with strategies and approaches to constructing effective government and rule. There are several themes expressed in the entirety of the Federalist papers. In examining these themes, it will help better understand the chosen Federalist papers that highlight these themes in depth.
Energy is one of the major themes and became a primary objective of the…… [Read More]
Madison's Federalist Paper
One of the central concerns of James Madison in his delineation of what constitutes a political or social faction in American politics is that the new, developing nation not become dominated by such alliances of individuals or factions. For Madison, factions are the antithesis of a fair and free government. Madison stated that in a new and potentially democratic nation such as the United States hoped to be, rather than the will of a tyrant, powerful interest groups could ban together and create factions that acted as voices that dominated the legislature. Thus rather than reasoned voices of governors, factions could become the new 'tyrants.' The only solutions to the dominance of factionalism were the legal protections and structures of governance, according to Madison's Federalist Paper 10.
Factions have their roots in human being's desires to associate in groups with common interests. However, this made it all…… [Read More]
While 10 may be the most important paper, 51 is the one that is still most often cited.
The differences between the two papers are easy to spot. Ten talks about something that plagues the government and political parties today, and Madison's ideas about how to avoid those problems was largely ignored in the Constitution. The political parties did not exist at first, but they started up rather quickly, and there were contentions between them from the start. Fifty-one, on the other hand, advocates separation of power between the elements of government, and those separations are still largely in place, which can keep one faction of government from growing too powerful and influential. Thus, the ideas of 51 were used and are still in use, while those of 10 were not, and the country may be suffering as a result. The Bush Administration has tried to overthrow some of the…… [Read More]
The Federalists advocated a strong central government while the Anti-Federalists advocated state governments. The former feared that division would lead to fighting and instability. The latter feared that centralized power would lead to the kind of totalitarianism that the American Revolutionaries had just victoriously opposed in the War for Independence. This paper will describe why I would align myself with the Anti-Federalists because of their aversion for centralized power.
The difference between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was all about what kind of government the United States would have. The Federalists wanted to ratify the Constitution (which we have today) because it defined the ways in which states would be subject to a federal government and the ways in which they would be free to act on their own. The view of the Federalists was that the Constitution would protect the states from "domestic factions and convulsions" and provide unity…… [Read More]
The penning of the American Constitution during the 1787 Philadelphia convention was followed by its ratification. This formal process delineated within Article 7 necessitated at least 9 states’ agreement to implement the Constitution, prior to actually enacting it (Pole, 1987). Whilst the Federalists supported ratification, Anti-Federalists were against it.
Those opposed to the constitution’s ratification claimed that it accorded disproportionate power to federal authorities, whilst robbing local and state bodies of their power, excessively. According to Anti-Federalists, the American federal government wouldn’t be able to adequately represent its citizens owing to the size of the nation and its population which deemed it impossible for federal branches to locally respond to citizens’ concerns (Lewis, 1967; Amar, 1993). Moreover, they were concerned about the absence of the provision of criminal jury trials, besides the absence of a bill of rights within the Constitution, and desired guaranteed protection of a few fundamental freedoms for citizens, including freedom…… [Read More]
Primary Source Analysis
On September 17, 1787 the Constitution of the United States was signed by 39 delegates from 12 states in Independence Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, after spending the summer debating the final form in the first Constitutional Convention. The Constitution represented in part an attempt to prevent the dissolution of the confederacy of states formed by the shared goal of independence, by forming a strong federal government (hodenhamel, 1987, p. 6).
Once the Constitution had been signed it had to be ratified by at least nine states before the federal government could be formed. To urge the states to ratify, a series of influential essays were published in New York newspapers by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay, under the pseudonym Publius (hodenhamel, 1987, p. 45). This collection of essays was called The Federalist Papers (Genovese, 2009).
Historians have since recognized that the most influential of…… [Read More]
Project Title: Ratifying the U.S. Constitution
I chose this topic because I feel that our country went from being a loose union of individual states to being a nation with a central government when the Constitution was ratified. This was more important than the War for Independence, because it dictated the type of government we would have. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, wanted a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists wanted every state to be its own government. The guiding question for me is: Should the U.S. have ratified the Constitution or stayed a loose confederation?
I found most of my research online, using Google to help me with my web browsing. For primary sources, I was able to locate all the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers at Constitution.org and Yale.edu. This gave me a sense of what the actual debate was about at the time. For modern day perspective, I found…… [Read More]
Madison's Relevance Today: Modern Echoes of Federalist No.
The Federalist Papers penned by James Madison, John Jay, and others in defense of the Constitution during the hotly contested period of its ratification remain some of the most significant documents in American political history to this date. Detailing the arguments of some of the men who helped to frame and influence the composition of the foundational body of laws and structure of government of what is now the most powerful nation on Earth, reading the Federalist Papers is akin to reading the minds of those that have helped to shape global politics and political ideals. At the same time, the fact that so many of the arguments made in these documents are now foregone conclusions, and that the rights and reasons invoked (not to mention the language in which they are invoked) seem so antiquated can make the Federalist…… [Read More]
Although it is now a ripe 65 years old, Leonard D. White's 1948 publication The Federalists remains highly relevant to studies of American history, politics, and governance. The Federalists is a seminal tome, and a benchmark with which to judge and evaluate subsequent writing on the subject of American public administration and its political and historical context. When it was published, reviewers were already calling the book "the first installment of what may already be called the definitive history of American public administration," (Hart, 1948, p. 703). As definitive as it was in 1948, the Federalists has been unsurpassed in the exact subject and content that Leonard White addressed. The language, packaging, and overall feel of the book might give away its age, but its endurance is due to more important matters such as erudite scholarship, reliance on primary sources, and unrelenting thoroughness.
One of the most enduring aspects…… [Read More]
Anti-Federalist & ill of Rights
The Anti-federalist vs. Federalist argument is one of the most heated political debates the United States has ever seen. Though the length of the actual debate was relatively short, lasting from October of 1787, when the final version of the constitution was approved by the first congressional convention to June of 1788 when Virginia was the first to ratify the constitution of the United States. The concepts ideas and standards that were set forth by both the anti-federalists and the federalists as well as other more moderate politicians are expressed throughout the foundational documentation of the United States.
Most notably the ill of Rights, or the first ten amendments of the United States Constitution are a reflective example of the compromises and victories of both sides but this can be seen elsewhere in the foundational documentation as well. Knowing this and being able to demonstrate…… [Read More]
The Antifederalists wanted to limit government severely in order to limit the effects of such corruption.
Had the Antifederalists won the debate on the constitution, the U.S. may not be the global power it is today. Its borders may not run from ocean to ocean. Its military may not be among the strongest in history. And many of the civil rights laws may not exist. The American system of government would look much different, as would the various states. However, this is not to say that they did not have criticisms of the American system under the federal constitution that have proven true time and again. The Antifederalists have shown themselves to be the fly in the ointment of American political thought. Their solutions may not have done much good. But the evils they pointed to continue to do harm.
Antifederalist No. 17. "FEDERALIST POER ILL ULTIMATELY SUBVERT…… [Read More]
ratification of the U.S. Constitution pushed the nation to extremes: on the one hand were the Federalists, led by men like Alexander Hamilton and James Madison -- men who promoted the idea of a central government (the reasons for which they enumerated at length in their "Federalist" papers); on the other hand were the Anti-Federalists, led by men like obert Yates and George Clinton (Yates being the presumptive author of the pseudonymously penned Anti-Federalist papers under the name of "Brutus"). Each side had its own view, not just of government, but of humanity and the way in which political society should be organized. This paper will present the underlying fundamental perspective of each side and show why I would have sided with the Anti-Federalists.
The Federalist plan to organize the federal government was to make it capable of overriding the individual autonomy and authority of the individual states, which the…… [Read More]
Federalist Papers are important to any analysis of the U.S. Constitution because they provided the philosophical and socio-political justification for the adoption of the Constitution. Prior to the ratification of the Constitution, the states were loosely united under the Articles of Confederation. However, Alexander Hamilton and his group of elites did not like that they could not be part of a federal/central government that oversaw and wielded power over the rest of the states. Thus, Hamilton penned many of the Federalist Papers (including Federalist no. 1) in order to combat the ideas expressed by the Anti-Federalists who condemned the Constitution as an attempt to subjugate states' rights.
The Federalist Papers may be read therefore as a series of a letters and arguments meant to sway the reader as to why the U.S. should adopt the Constitution in place of the Articles of Confederation. It is a body of writing that…… [Read More]
Federalism, Unitary, And Confederation
Federalism: Federalism is a political system of governance in which powers are divided among two levels of government, i.e., a central government and governments based in smaller political units, usually called states, provinces, or territories. In this system of government, the smaller political units surrender some of their political power to the central government, relying on it to act for the common good. (Davidson, Encarta article)
Comparison of Federalist, Unitary and Confederation Governing Structures
Other types of government structure are Unitary and Confederation. In a Unitary system, virtually all powers are held by the central government, although it may delegate some of its powers to local or city governments but such delegation is discretionary and for administrative purposes only. A confederation is similar to a federation but with far less power given to the central government. In confederations, the local governments retain most of the powers…… [Read More]
Federalist Papers, the U.S. Constitution was ratified in the late 1780's by the original 13 states. But this new nation would experience a myriad of other changes by the turn of the century. With a new political system, westward expansionism and manifest destiny would guide the new American spirit. Of the most significant transformations on the American landscape of the late 18th and early 19th centuries were the parallel phenomena of the Industrial Revolution and the Second Great Awakening. One an unbridled attempt to expand the material world, the other a fanatical endeavor to revive religious sentiment, these movements were uniquely positioned in time. They would also pull the American psyche in two opposing directions.
The Second Great Awakening was a never-before seen Protestant revival movement that swept through the new nation. Preachers sought converts and converts sought church membership in record numbers. On the other side of the equation,…… [Read More]
Baltimore Advertiser, 18 Mar 1788)
(2) the second class was reported as comprised by "those descriptions of men who are certainly more numerous with us than in any other part of the globe. First, those men who are so wise as to discover that their ancestors and indeed all the rest of mankind were and are fools. We have a vast overproportion of these great men, who, when you tell them that from the earliest period at which mankind devoted their attention to social happiness, it has been their uniform judgment, that a government over governments cannot exist - that is two governments operating on the same individual - assume the smile of confidence, and tell you of two people travelling the same road - of a perfect and precise division of the duties of the individual." (No. 10 -- on the Preservation of Parties, Public Liberty Depends, 18 Mar…… [Read More]
American Political Philosophy: epublicanism
Within this paper, the general theory of republicanism will be presented. The conceptualization of republicanism discussed within the paper as an American political philosophy will be based on The Federalist Papers written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison in 1787. Initially, a brief overview of relevant background information on The Federalist Papers will be provided. This will be followed by a discussion of the primary components of republicanism as set forth within the works of Hamilton, Jay and Madison. A summary and conclusions will then be provided.
Overview of The Federalist Papers
The Federalist Papers have been suggested as representing one of the most important writing in American political thought (Yarbrough, 1986). It represents a collection of 85 letters written by Hamilton, Jay and Madison under the pseudonym of Publius. The letters were written to the American public and were initially published in a…… [Read More]
Conservatism in America
Intellectually, it is indeed correct that post-orld ar II can be divided into two periods of conservatism: the period which emerged directly after the war (1945-1990) and the period from 1990 onwards. Traditionally as Ball explained, conservatism in America were opposed to rapid development and industrialization in the early 20th century: "From their point-of-view, this new mass society posed the same threat that democracy had always posed -- the threat that the masses would throw society first into chaos and then in despotism. In arguments similar to those of Plato, Aristotle, and more recently Alexis de Tocqueville, traditional conservatives maintained that the common people were too weak and too ignorant to take charge of government" (Ball, 108). Essentially, this meant that conservatism in the twentieth century revolved around the notion of self-restraint and a core belief pervades that only a small majority are suitable to govern, while…… [Read More]
Factions: Help or Hindrance
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, aided by John Jay, were responsible for writing eighty-five anonymous essays for the New York Journal in 1787 and 1788. These articles were known as The Federalist Papers, and they were intended to persuade people into ratifying the proposed Constitution. In The Federalist Paper Number 10, Madison responded to critics who had argued that the United States was too large, and had too many groups, or "factions," to be ruled democratically by a single government. Madison acknowledged the importance of factions in the opening paragraph, stating that, "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" (Rossiter, 1961). In prescribing how to rule and control the effects of factions, Madison detailed their relationships with other important concepts, such as liberty and property,…… [Read More]
Presidential and Congressional Powers
In the simplest of terms, the differences in powers between Congress and the President is that Congress makes laws and the President enforces them. But, that description does a great injustice to the complexities of the roles of each. Congress is granted "all legislative powers" by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Those powers include the making of laws, coining money, declaring war, regulating interstate and foreign commerce, and maintaining the military. The powers of the President (Executive Branch) are outlined in Article II of the Constitution. They include the power of appointment and removal, the creation of executive orders, limited legislative powers, veto power, pardoning power, power to make treaties, and military powers separate from those of Congress. Both sets of powers, in conjunction with the Judicial Branch, form a balance of powers within the Federal Government. It is the purpose of this paper…… [Read More]
" It seems as if Madison was as concerned as the 'anti-federalists' of the time concerning the structure of the new government and wished to alleviate those concerns by allowing each branch control over its own destiny, while at the same time giving the other two branches the authority to step in if something were to go seriously wrong. He was especially concerned of the legislature. He states; "If, therefore, the legislature assumes executive and judiciary powers, no opposition is likely to be made." (pg 308) He wished to ensure that event would not happen. He also states that the executive, similar to the legislative, branch could also be usurped and that there should be no elective despotism, whether that despotism was one man in the executive office, or a group of despots in the legislative, either situation would be unacceptable.
One of the reasons why Madison was worried about…… [Read More]
In this case, according to Alexander Hamilton, the court would have had the right to interfere and it would have had the superior power to declare the Texas statue void on its face.
However, Hamilton aside, our natural law and natural rights also prohibit first trimester abortion. Derived from Locke, Natural law and natural rights follow from the nature of man and the world. For instance, we have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because of our nature, because of the kind of creatures that we are. True law derives from this right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Natural law has an objective, extrinsic existence. The ability to make moral judgment - or in other words, the capacity to know good and evil -- has immediate evolutionary benefits: just as the capacity to perceive three dimensionally tells one when one is standing on…… [Read More]
Today the outbound telephone marketing industry has given political campaigns the ability to reach out to a large group of targeted voters in a quick and quiet way, just below the radar. This notion went way beyond the small volunteer call centers that have existed for over forty years. It was essential for the technology to be in place and widely utilized. Political campaigns could not have put into production a complete industry of dissimilar companies, large and small, with many thousands of telephones in call centers. This was a revolution as one could target using any criteria from gender, age, vote propensity, income, level of education, to presence of children. One could shape the message even within a single calling agenda, so that they may be calling all women, but the script may be different for younger women in comparison to older women. And maybe most importantly, one can…… [Read More]
philosophy of education through a historical and then through an explicitly Christian lens, with a focus on the political role of education, and the Christian philosophy of John Milton. Milton's 1644 works Areopagitica and Of Education are invoked to justify the true Christian purpose of education as being exposure to the sort of free expression and free exchange of ideas that are guaranteed in America under the First Amendment.
What would a true Christian philosophy of education look like? The answer might actually be surprising to the majority of Americans who identify themselves as Christian and seek a Christian education. In 2014, frequently Christian education can seem retrograde, a form of ressentiment and indoctrination that derides Darwinism and has a greater interest in upholding a political consensus than in embodying the ideals set forth by Christ Himself. I propose to examine a Christian philosophy of education through a somewhat unique…… [Read More]
Harris (1979) noted that the work of Polybius on oman Imperialism can be viewed to be a much more closer/realistic account of the process that any other 20th century historians. Polybius was therefore very honest and at the same time reliable with his work on oman history (Davidson, 1991, p.10).
Polybius' contribution to the establishment of the U.S. constitution
The contribution of Polybius to the establishment of the U.S. constitution is well documented. His work on the separation of powers is indicated to have immensely influenced the U.S. Founding Fathers (Lloyd,1998). His work can therefore be regarded as one aspect of classical contributions to the U.S. constitution (Bederman,2008).The concept of separation of powers concerns the need for having separate and very distinct legislative, executive as well as judicial branches of a given government. This is one of the central features of the U.S. Constitution. Through this process of separation of…… [Read More]
Federalists, Anti-Federalists and the Constitution
The ratification of the US Constitution was an issue that essentially divided the thirteen colonies in two: on the one hand was the push by the Federalists for ratification. Their argument was that the thirteen colonies needed a centralized, federal government to ensure that the colonies themselves did not get into any trouble (either through in-fighting or through foreign wars). The Anti-Federalists, on the other hand, saw the Constitution as a gateway to the exact type of authoritarianism that the Revolutionaries had just opposed in the Revolutionary War. The Anti-Federalists wanted each individual state to mind its own affairs and, at best, for there to be a loose confederation among the states so that no one, single entity could assert itself over them all. This paper will examine the writings of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists in light of their historical context of the late…… [Read More]
In fact, during the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Slonim notes that the need for a bill of rights was not even a topic of discussion until Virginian delegate George Mason raised the issue just several days before the Convention was scheduled to rise on September 17; Mason suggested that a bill of rights "would give great quiet to the people." Following this assertion, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts moved that the Convention add a bill of rights to the Constitution and Mason seconded his motion to no avail: "The Convention unanimously rejected the proposal by a vote of 10 to 0, with one state absent. Failure to heed Mason's counsel was to plague the Federalists throughout the ratification campaign" (emphasis added).
The first major confrontation concerning the ratification of the Constitution involving the need for a bill of rights occurred in Pennsylvania several weeks after the close of the Constitutional Convention; at…… [Read More]
45, for instance, where he argues that "the State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. ithout the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all." (Rossiter, 287) This is a position which suggests not only that the Federalists felt that significant power had already been entrusted to leaders at the state level, but also that this power is seen primarily as a function of the power of the federal government. Thus, we are given further confirmation that the Constitution was inherently a federal document.
In key segments of the debate such as that shown in the Anti-Federalist Paper No. 17, we can see that those who stood in opposition to the empowerment of federal authority derived from the Constitution were a…… [Read More]
Articles of Confederation: The Articles of Confederation were approved in November, 1777 and were the basic format for what would become the Constitution and Bill of ights for the United States. There were, of course, deficiencies in the document, this was a new experiment and getting the delegates to agree in kind to pass any sort of document was challenging at best. The Articles did allow a semblance of unity, the further impetus to remain at war with the British, and the conclusion that there would be some sort of Federal government. The Articles, however, failed to require individual States to help fund the Federal (National) government, a template for an Executive and National Judicial Branch, or the issuance of paper money and a central banking system. In essence, the largest failure was the Articles' inability to allow a Federal government to regulate commerce, tax, or impose laws upon the…… [Read More]
10 was written so that people could see the good in the Constitution and why it was so very important that it be ratified and accepted by all of the states in the U.S.
Federalist Paper No. 10 (Madison, 1787) is an excellent primary source because it has been verified by scholars and historians throughout the ages, because it can be safely attributed to Madison as the author, and because it has so much historic significance for the United States overall. However, understanding that Paper in context is vital, or some of what Madison had to say will be lost. For that reason, a secondary source is needed. In this case, hodenhamel's (1987) Letters of liberty: A documentary history of the U.S. Constitution helps to show how Madison's (1787) Federalist Paper No. 10 was used as a part of something much greater. Taken by itself, the Paper is still significant.…… [Read More]
Both large states with a great population, they did not want to lose influence or power to a federal government. In particular, there was great debate in New York as existing political leaders feared a lose of power. The Federalists were those who supported the Constitution and include James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. They were the Federalist Papers that were published in New York and not only helped the Constitution to be ratified, but guided the direction of the new American nation. Those who opposed a strong government were the anti-federalists and they feared America would turn into a corrupt nation like Great Britain.
George Washington, who would be the first President, was a federalist and had great influence and therefore helped the country to go in that direction. A Bill of Rights quelled further fears about the oppression of the federal government. In 1788 the Constitution went into effect.…… [Read More]
Henderson the Rain King
Saul Bellow was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1976 for, among other things, the ability to give values a place side by side with facts in literature, unlike realism. The import of his work was seen as creating awareness that only the right values can give human kind freedom and responsibility, necessary foundations for building of faith in the future and a desire for action. Bellow's work was also recognized for its unique mixture of philosophy, cultural analysis and deep insights into human consciousness (The Nobel Foundation eb site).
Henderson the Rain King is an archetypical Bellow work bearing all the aforesaid characteristics. Henderson, the novel's principal character sets out on a journey ostensibly to Africa but primarily in search of himself. Bellow's portrayal of the unhappy, discontented middle-aged American millionaire has been widely interpreted as a caricature of Americans in the…… [Read More]
America was a wonderful experiment in freedom and democracy which had never before been attempted by any nation. Nations either tried to give power to the people in order to prevent monarchies from rising to despotic power, or they allowed monarchs, despots and other sole figure heads to rise to power. In the case of allowing the people to rule, Europe and European's had learned many times that unbridled power in the hands of the people was no more just than the rule of despots. obs could become just as dictatorial as individual monarchs who sat upon golden thrones. Until America came into existence, nations could only expect to exist for a short time before political turmoil would create change of government, and the nation would start over again.
So as America grew from a fledgling nation to a powerful and economically stable country, those who had watched democracy struggle…… [Read More]
In 1863, President Abraham Lincoln delivered a brief but stirring speech while the country was in the process of tearing itself apart in a civil war. During that speech President Lincoln stated a phrase that has helped to capture what democracy means. Lincoln told the audience that had gathered to dedicate a soldier's cemetery that the government that had been formed "of the people, by the people, for the people" would not "perish from the earth." In that phrase, Lincoln summarized what the founding fathers had hoped to capture in documents that shaped the system of government they believed was essential for prosperity and happiness for all mankind. The fact that the United States has remained in existence for more than 200 years does not necessarily mean that the ideals Lincoln spoke of are in existence today. In fact, many would argue that the concepts Lincoln captured in his…… [Read More]
S. Congress' prohibition of the practice and the Court's refusal to allow the practice, conflicted with the rights of individuals engaged in such practice. The actions of a religious group which are normally protected under the First Amendment and the laws of states like Utah that might wish to turn a blind eye to the practice were not allowed.
The states claim the social contract has been broken because the U.S. government has infringed upon individuals' liberty to marry more than one person and the states' rights to regulate matters not specifically delineated in the Bill of Rights. However, if this were the case that a state could secede every time the federal government disagreed with a state's definition of individual liberties. Virtually every constitutional dispute in the history of the nation, regarding the Bill of Rights, from abortion, to affirmative action, to gay marriage, to free speech, could justify…… [Read More]
Roger Wilkins presents perhaps the most complete picture of the Founding Fathers in his book Jefferson's Pillow: The Founding Fathers and the Dilemma of Black Patriotism. It is Wilkins' argument that Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, James Madison and George Mason were not the idyllic seekers-of-justice and equality that we have been taught, but rather they were wealthy slaveholders with political powers that were not always exercised is an "American" way. In light of this newly presented information, our former ideals need to be reevaluated against the ideas of black patriotism, as well as against our thoughts on patriotism in general. How could all men have been created equal, when African-Americans were not considered to be men at all? Indeed, Americans cannot fully come to understand themselves until they are able to understand who the aforementioned individuals were - no matter what the results.
Slaveholders were great politicians in our nation's…… [Read More]
government that governs least the best sort of government for a freedom-Loving nation to have.
Does the Government that Governs Least Govern the Best?: A Closer Look
That government is best which governs least." This statement has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, though there is no actual evidence of the statement in any of his extant writings. Whether Jefferson originally made this famous saying or not is inconsequential. The fact is, this saying has been repeated countless times over the past two centuries by proponents of democracy, states' rights, civil liberties, and all sorts of other precepts upon which our nation was supposedly founded. Those who believe that a true freedom-loving democracy consists of a government that stays out of the business of its citizens as much as possible are many and loud. There are many historically famous people who can be counted among the ranks of those who believe…… [Read More]
The criticisms that de Tocqueville levels against American society, and especially against some of the particulars of its governance, continue in his discussion of the potential tyranny of the majority. Americans regard the majority much as Europeans viewed their king, according to de Tocqueville: it can do no wrong, and any wrong it does do is only due to bad advice or information. This subservience, according to de Tocqueville, creates the potential for a majority to rob a minority of its rights through legal means. While this danger certainly exists, however, de Tocqueville fails to demonstrate how it is worse than the tyranny of a monarch.
In addition to the arguments and political observation that de Tocqueville makes, there are other key features of Democracy in America that stand out to the modern reader as interesting tidbits of information, and aspects of American history that have perhaps not been fully…… [Read More]
This is reflected in the document where Jefferson expressly outlines the idea that all men have certain rights and are responsible for their own paths in life (Pilon, 2000). It is a product of its own era, and liberalism was the philosophy that drove much of the political actions in the early United States.
The same can be said of The Federalist. These were a collection of essays regarding the interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. They are also set upon the basic premise that all people are created equal, and that humans have certain unalienable rights that a nation or state needs to respect and honor (Hamilton, et al., 2003). The men who wrote the essays were certainly trying to create a good regime through their own beliefs and values. Their ideas, which later led to the founding of a nation, are key in understanding what they believed a good…… [Read More]
Separation of Powers
It is well-known fact that political power is a very dynamic sphere of human relations and there is no doubt that democratic system is the most progressive result of complicated process of society development. Every citizen of any real democratic society knows that government is called to protect his individual rights and interests but at the same time it is clear from the pages of history that state machine was the main violator of citizens' rights.
It had been proved by thousand years of our history that state organs were not able to secure order and peace in the country, guarantee civil rights and provide effective domestic or foreign policy if political power were usurped by one person or group of them. Moreover, these people become dangerous to usual citizens and the main aim is to remove the amount of power they have to make it difficult…… [Read More]
In Medieval times Christianity took over as the dominant form of ethics and through feudalism, divine law organized social and political hierarchy. As religiosity was replaced by humanism, and the Catholic church by alternative viewpoints (Protestantism) political and social structures were torn apart, forcing change and a decline in the structure of feudalism and the opening of a new, more individualistic, some say greedy, system of capitalism. Philosophies of the Age of Englitenment further distanced themselves from using religion as the sole basis for structure with such philosophers as John Locke, Thomas Hobbes, Rene Descartes and others holding that human existence was more individual -- and therefore more dependent upon individual morals and judgements. Romanticism took these ideas and, through fusion, merged them with ideas on nature, emotion, and the grand capacity for actualization, but again, through the individual (Tumin and Plotch, 1977; (luhm and Heineman). The modern age is…… [Read More]
Teaching the fundamentals does not necessarily mean stripping the fun out of learning, however. In fact, the best educators know how to balance the wishes of students with core concepts. For example, teaching Homers Odyssey could include both a close reading of the primary text, an analysis of the text using literary criticism, plus an analysis of modern manifestations of the work, such as the Coen brothers' film O Brother here Art Thou. Developing a broad-based curriculum can extend fundamental knowledge about literature, making that knowledge applicable to a wide range of literary works. hen educators are able to incorporate popular culture into a traditional curriculum, their work becomes creative and powerful. Students who can apply themes and philosophies to works beyond that which they encounter in the classroom have really learned something. However, by simply mimicking popular culture, the educator deprives students of the ability to think critically. A…… [Read More]
For years, historians had been writing that the American evolution was the virtuous reaction to England's curtailment of rights. Then, in 1967, Harvard history professor Bernard Bailyn added his additional theory of ideology. In his book, The Ideological Origins of the American evolution, Bailyn agreed that the settlers were principled. Yet that was not the main cause of the discontent. Instead, he said, the settlers had inherited the suspicion of dangers that lurked with power of one entity over another. ather than seeing England's actions as solely unintended slipups, the colonists were paranoid enough to read them as part of a political plot. Obsession, not principles, led to the revolution.
Four decades later, no one is surprised that Bailyn comes up with a different twist to history. "For the last five decades Bernard Bailyn has been the preeminent colonial American historian'1. According to Professor ichard Beeman of the…… [Read More]
Communication and Super-Saturation of the Modern Sense of Self
"How does the design of information structure the information process? And how, on the other side of the equation, does the nature of audience engagement structure its reception?"
Communication by its very nature is a dialogue. One person or medium speaks. Another individual or an audience of individuals receives the word or the message being conveyed. As with any performance, particularly a live performance, the method of transmission of the message conveyed invariably affects the message itself.
This is demonstrated in its most raw form during an improvised performance piece such as that of a stand-up comic. The comic realizes that he or she is not getting a favorable reception from the audience.
They are yawning, or signaling to the waiter that they would like some new drinks. The comic takes stock of this information, realizing that he or she is…… [Read More]
Analysis of the Issues: The ethical concern for the rights and welfare of viable infants is certainly a legitimate concern, but the central ethical analysis that pertains to stem cell research revolves around the issue of defining human life appropriately. Objective criteria like anatomical development, cognitive awareness, and above all, sentience of any degree and in any form are all legitimate bases for the definition of life and for identifying the period of gestation corresponding to the earliest conceivable safeguards necessary to prevent suffering.
On the other hand, purely subjective doctrinal claims without objective criteria of any kind are wholly inappropriate bases for defining scientific concepts like when life begins. The fact that human development varies among individuals and that it may be impossible to know exactly where sentience and other elements of "humanness" first begin in the fetus does not mean that it is impossible to identify periods of…… [Read More]
In the period between the evolution and the drafting of the Constitution, Jefferson noted that the eventual existence of a dictator in place of a king in Ancient ome clearly indicated the existence of real failings within the oman system:
dictator is entirely antithetical to republicanism's "fundamental principle...that the state shall be governed as a commonwealth," that there be majority rule, and no prerogative, no "exercise of [any] powers undefined by the laws." "Powers of governing...in a plurality of hands." (Zuckert, 1996, p. 214)
As a result, Jefferson, like the philosophes before him (and the Iroquois) would turn to ideas that would balance the necessary evils of government power with the rights of the people. James Madison agreed wholeheartedly, and urged in "Government of the United States" that a constitutional government based on separation of powers was the only sure way of preventing the country from taking the "high road…… [Read More]
America went from being a loose union of individual states to being a nation with a central government when the Constitution was ratified. This was more important than the War for Independence, because it dictated the type of government we would have. The Federalists, led by Hamilton, wanted a strong central government. The Anti-Federalists wanted every state to be its own government. The guiding question of this essay is: Should the U.S. have ratified the Constitution or stayed a loose confederation? This paper will show why the U.S. was better off not ratifying the Constitution and remaining a loose confederation of states.
An interesting article at Mises Institute by Gary Galles argued that history has proven that the Anti-Federalists were right in their fears of what would happen should a central government be founded. As Galles notes, the Anti-Federalists were opposed to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution because they…… [Read More]
My political ideology is based on my reading of the early Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers. When I read these papers I realized that the way our country works today was really shaped by events back then during the days of the founding of the country's constitution. I used to be a Constitutionalist and identify with the libertarians led by on Paul, who pushes to uphold the Constitution. But after reading the Anti-Federalist Papers, I realized that the Constitution itself was never really a good thing: it was essentially designed to take power away from the states and place it in the hands of a central government, an idea promoted by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers (Federalist No. 6, n.d.). The Anti-Federalists viewed this as a violation of the freedom and autonomy they had just won from England in the evolutionary War (Brutus No. 1, 1787). If the…… [Read More]
The colonists' most revered military institution was the militia, a model inherited from their forebears in England. The philosophical underpinnings of the militia model are easy to understand: "fear of a standing army," (Millet and Maslowski 1). A standing army can turn against its people, staging what now would be called military coups one after the other. During and especially after Independence, the validity, effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance of the militia model was called into question. This is why the United States Constitution eventually included the provisions for federalized systems of national security. Naturally, the existence of a standing army to "provide for the common defense" would be required. Independence required an organized military strategy against a powerful Empire; to protect the new nation, it was certain that the military would be necessary to preserve all that hard work. The Constitution therefore enabled the creation and maintenance of standing…… [Read More]
In this encouragement, American would help to touch off something
perhaps all the more miraculous given the proximity to its oppression to
the European peasantry at large. First in the doctrines which would be
formulated in the wake of French independence and secondly in the way that
Napoleon Bonaparte would begin the spread of such doctrines to a continent
driven by inequality, America's revolution could be said to have been the
opening round in the deconstruction of colonialism and feudalism throughout
Europe and thus, the world.
Drafted in the image of the American Declaration of Independence,
though perhaps more ambitious and sweeping even in its trajectories, the
Declaration of the Rights of Men would dictate a universal principle
arguing that all men are born equal and that any distinctions made between
men according to the social conditions must be terms agreed upon by all
parties. The constitutional document underscoring the…… [Read More]
American Constitution: A living, evolving document -- from guaranteeing the right to enslavement in the 18th century to modifications in favor of freedom in the 19th century
Constitution today protects the rights of all in its language, but this was not always the case in its text and spirit. As a political tactic as well as out of personal conviction and experience, Frederick Douglass' characterization of the American Constitution as an anti-slavery document is certainly an admirable piece of rhetoric. Douglass stated that although the America he spoke to at the time of his autobiography My Bondage and My Freedom, was a nation divided between free and slave states and territories, fundamentally America was and "is in its letter and spirit, an anti-slavery instrument, demanding the abolition of slavery as a condition of its own existence" (396)
Slavery, Douglass stated, deprives an individual of his or her dignity, deprives an…… [Read More]
ig vs. Small Government
The problem of government and public administration in the U.S. today is one that affects many people. The trend in politics in recent years is for voters to voice their anger and frustration with government by voting for outsiders, such as Rand Paul, Donald Trump and ernie Sanders -- candidates who challenge the status quo, overreach of big government, lack of accountability and lack of representation. However, what representatives like Ron Paul assert is that government is too big and that smaller government, according to the Constitution as it was initially devised, needs to be adhered to in order to protect citizens from big government.
The main point of this study is to understand whether the common citizen is in favor of big government or small government and what their perception of the role of government is in today's world.
This study uses relevant literature on…… [Read More]
Evolution of the Two-Party System in America
Most of the founding fathers of the United States were opposed to the formation of political parties considering them as "quarreling factions" that would foster corruption and hinder the public from freely judging issues on merit. Hence no provision was made in the U.S. Constitution for political parties. Yet a two-party has come to dominate the country's politics, with the Democratic and the Republican parties becoming the two dominant political parties in the U.S. since the mid-19th century.
As early as the 1790s, people with deferring vision of the country's future had started to band together in order to win support for their ideas. The faction that was identified with Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton and Vice President John Adams became known as the "Federalists" while those who supported Thomas Jefferson and James Madison came to be known as the "Democratic-Republicans." (Burke)…… [Read More]
Revolution, Constitution and Enlightenment
The American Revolution and the ensuing U.S. Constitution put forward by the Federalists were both products of and directly informed by the European Enlightenment. The Founding Fathers were considerably influenced by thinkers like Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau and Montesquieu (whose separation of powers served as the model of the three-branched government of the U.S.). This paper will explain how the European Enlightenment set the stage for the American Revolution and U.S. Constitution by putting out the ideas that the Americans would use as the basis of the political and social foundation.
The Enlightenment aka the Age of Reason was an Age in which natural philosophy assumed the vaulted position of guiding light over the preceding Age of Faith, which had served as the socio-political basis in Europe for centuries. The Reformation had upended the Age of Faith and introduced secularization into the political realm (Laux), particularly via…… [Read More]
This meant that President was not allowed to encroach upon the rights and powers of other branches. Hamilton further explains in the Federalist Paper # 75:
The essence of the legislative authority is to enact laws, or, in other words, to prescribe rules for the regulation of society; while the execution of the laws, and the employment of the common strength, either for this purpose or for the common defense, seem to comprise all the functions of the executive magistrate.
It was because the framers wanted to limit the powers of the President that his term was fixed at four-years. It was much later that the condition of twice consecutive terms was incorporated in the Constitution to further curtail the powers of the Executive branch. While the framers tried to control all braches of the government by means of limiting powers, they did intend to have a stronger executive branch…… [Read More]