Interest Groups


Olson argues four solutions:1) you can either keep the size of the group small enough so that people get some benefit from being in the group itself, a feeling of friendship or solidarity, that you do not get in a large organization.

- Smaller groups are more effective than larger groups because they can organize more easy
- A member of a small group is more likely to experience the group success and therefore is more      likely to work harder than a member of a large group
- However groups do experience the free rider program where individuals can benefit from the work of the group without actually joining the group.

According to Olson's law of large groups, this problem is greater with large groups. Intensity is a another factor.  Single-issue groups form around a specific policy and tend to pursue it uncompromisingly. They often deal with moral issues that people feel strongly about and members of these groups often vote according to a candidate's stand on the group's issue. Politicians are most likely to serve the needs of people or groups with money, allowing them to mobilize conduct research and maintain an administration.

 The Judiciary


"The court case that is most relevant to grandparents’ visitation rights is Troxel v. Granville, decided in 2000 by the U.S. Supreme Court. This case dealt a serious blow to grandparents’ rights.The heart of the decision is a statement that “fit parents” are presumed to act in their children’s best interests. This is presumed to be true even when parents cut off contact with other family members.

Tommie Granville and Brad Troxel were the unmarried parents of two daughters. When their relationship ended, Troxel, the father, often took the girls to his parents’ home for visits.

After Troxel committed suicide two years later, his parents continued to see the girls. After Tommie Granville remarried and her husband adopted the girls, she tried to limit the visits of the Troxel grandparents. The Troxels filed suit based on the Washington State statute, which didn’t actually mention grandparents but granted “third parties” the right to file for visitat
The case made its way through the court system, arriving at the Washington State Supreme Court. That court ruled that the Washington statute should have required a demonstration of harm or potential harm to the child if the visitation was denied. The court ruled the statute invalid on federal constitutional grounds.

......... Most of the major cases were not about issues of procedural due process, but substantive due process, which asks whether or not the government has a good reason to deprive someone of their rights. In many cases, the Supreme Court has said no, and have defined many more rights than originally specified in the Constitution, since the 9th amendment mentions "unenumerated" rights that are not specifically named. In some cases, maybe, you want the court to say yes, like the issue of unlimited financing of political campaigns. Many of the rights we enjoy today are a result of rights implied by the Constitution, but defined by judicial review looking at concrete cases. The notion of substantive due process then guides the process of judicial review, which itself has a defined procedure it follows, applying "strict scrutiny" in only the most important cases:

   
The Presidency


President Obama, for obvious ideological reasons, seeks to portray himself in the lineage of Jefferson and Lincoln. Obama addresses the issue of race in a way Lincoln never could by drawing upon his own experiences with racism, especially as a child of mixed race who has insight into the attitudes of whites and blacks, in his speech on race, considered by many to be his best speech. 




Obama: "Racism. We are not cured of it. And it's not just a matter of it not being polite to say 'nigger' in public. That's not the measure of whether racism still exists or not. It's not just a matter of overt discrimination. Societies don't overnight completely erase everything that happened 200-300 years prior.
So what I tried to describe in the Selma speech that I gave, commemorating the march there, was, again, a notion that progress is real, and we have to take hope from that progress. But what is also real is that the march isn't over, and the work is not yet completed. And then our job is to try in very concrete ways to figure out, what more can we do?"
I have chosen this passage because racism is still  very real even today in 2016. We see race but not the human race, where we could unite and work together to make this world a better place.

Congress



One important consideration in determining electoral districts for the House, is what has come to be know as "gerrymandering." State legislatures in each state are tasked with re-drawing the electoral districts in accordance with population fluctuations in the state. Predictably, this has a partisan bias, meaning simply, that whatever party has a majority in the state will seek to draw the boundaries in the district to benefit their party and disadvantage the other party. This has led to some oddly shaped electoral districts, like this one in Chicago...

In the absence of gerrymandering, more congressional districts would be up for grabs on election day. There seems to be no democracy and the outcome of the congressional elections are preordained.

Take the drawing of district boundaries out of the hands of self interested politicians. Congress could reform by imposing a federal law for a fair method of redistricting on states.

Equal Rights


  The idea of social rights then speaks to the idea that everyone is entitled as he says "to a certain standard of civilization" meaning that people are entitled to the things necessary for a healthy and productive life. Political struggles for these rights only increased during the 20th century. In the U.S. the greatest period for the extension of social rights occurred between the 1930s and 1970s beginning from the New Deal to the civil rights movement. When Dr. King was assassinated in 1968, he was in Memphis for a sanitation worker's strike, and he even renamed his movement, the "poor people's campaign" showing that he saw his struggle as something evolving, first to eliminate legal segregation which did consist of the government interfering in the lives of black people by telling them where they could eat, work, etc., to a movement that struggled to secure the basic necessities of life for all people.

It seems that the word "everyone" on paper does not mean everyone in reality. As everyone wasn't given and still don't have equal rights. Today social rights is not generally accepted because we do not get free healthcare among other things here in America, unlike most countries around the world.

 Civil Disobedience


"But such is not the sate of the case. I sat it with a sad sense of 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. The rich inheritance of justice, liberty, prosperity and independence, bequeather 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 of 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! "
 
 I choose this paragraph because Douglas points to a glaring gap in the creed of America, which according to Chesterton is embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Douglass here indicates an essential contradiction in all universal ideologies or beliefs. Every belief that claims to include all of humanity (and can be said to be universal) always in reality excludes somebody, and that these exclusions are concealed and made invisible:

The New York Times article by Rachel Barkow

 

"As I have suggested elsewhere, clarifying and expanding the Eighth Amendment could help. It should specifically state that excessive terms of incarceration are prohibited, just as it bans excessive fines. It should expressly prohibit mandatory sentences so that every case gets the benefit of individualized attention by a judge. And it should insist that legislatures create a record showing that they considered empirical evidence about the law's likely impact." 

What I understand from what Barkow is saying is that there needs to be more to the eight amendment and it needs to be clearer as doing so would help the current prison situation. The fact that it bans excessive fine so should it do away with excessive terms of incarceration. She's saying that every case is different and should be treated as such instead of automatically giving a certain number of years. The eight amendment as is, fuels the profits of the prison business, where corporations are making money at the expense of peoples freedom especially the minority.


I choose this article because being a black woman, it hits close to home as our black men are not only unjustly loosing their freedom in our society today but also their lives and are constantly victims of racial profiling and other forms of discriminations even now in 2016. I'm not saying that they should get caught up in the world of illegal drugs because to me that is a bait that is put in place, and they need to recognize and stay clear. If the eight amendment is changed like what Barkow is arguing then at least the punishment would be more suitable accordingly and not in general. In order to have a great nation, you need great citizens. Being in prison longer than one should not only affects the individual but also their family, where as their love ones are deprived from their contribution in aiding with the stability of raising and sustaining a family. A stable family is better equipped to contribute to society, thus creating a better nation.

The Constitution and The Federalist

This is probably the most well-known example of the second major principle guiding the Constitution, the system of checks and balances. Similar to the separation of powers, this principle stipulates that the different branches of government have to be in agreement on major decisions and that each branch has the power to limit the power of the other branch. The idea of separation of powers would be pretty much meaningless if it did not include this as well. These two principles were designed above all else to prevent tyranny, even at the expense of effective government, or what Hamilton would call "energetic government." 

 Tyranny is unjust or oppressive governmental power. In order to prevent this from happening the founding fathers set systems in order to prevent the abuse of power. The separation of power system called checks and balances, is where the government is divided into different branches with each branch having special powers. Certain branch have power over the other in order to keep them balanced.

So basically each branch of government has the ability to check and then if necessary balance the other branches. If the declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal then why shouldn't the government be equal in making, explaining and passing laws.

What I Saw In America by G.K Chesterton

What Is America

"One of the questions on the paper was, 'Are you an anarchist?' To which a detached philosopher would naturally feel inclined to answer, 'What the devil has that to do with you? Are you an atheist?' along with some playful efforts to cross-examine the official about what constitutes an ἁρχη [Greek: archê]. Then there was the question, 'Are you in favour of subverting the government of the United States by force?' Against this I should write, 'I prefer to answer that question at the end of my tour and not the beginning.' The inquisitor, in his more than morbid curiosity, had then written down, 'Are you a polygamist?' The answer to this is, 'No such luck' or 'Not such a fool,' according to our experience of the other sex. But perhaps a better answer would be that given to W. T. Stead when he circulated the rhetorical question, 'Shall I slay my brother Boer?'—the answer that ran, 'Never interfere in family matters.' But among many things that amused me almost to the point of treating the form thus disrespectfully, the most amusing was the thought of the ruthless outlaw who should feel compelled to treat it respectfully. I like to think of the foreign desperado, seeking to slip into America with official papers under official protection, and sitting down to write with a beautiful gravity, 'I am an anarchist. I hate you all and wish to destroy you.' Or, 'I intend to subvert by force the government of the United States as soon as possible, sticking the long sheath-knife in my left trouser-pocket into Mr. Harding at the earliest opportunity.' Or again, 'Yes, I am a[Pg 5] polygamist all right, and my forty-seven wives are accompanying me on the voyage disguised as secretaries.' There seems to be a certain simplicity of mind about these answers; and it is reassuring to know that anarchists and polygamists are so pure and good that the police have only to ask them questions and they are certain to tell no lies."

Chesterton mentioned that "nobody should be ashamed of thinking a thing is funny because it is foreign," and also " one should be ashamed of thinking its wrong because it is funny." The form he got at the embassy most would naturally find funny due to questions such as "are you an anarchist or a polygamist?" What is even more funny is which anarchist or polygamist would answer those questions truthfully wanting to gain admittance into a country which condemns such a person.
What he's saying though is that its quite natural to laugh at these questions because they wouldn't understand where they are coming from.

I chose this chapter because the writer amuses me in trying to explain how easy it is to laugh or make fun of a thing because we do not understand and respect it. Chesterton explains that The American constitution is founded on a creed and is the only nation in the world to do that. In the declaration of independence the creator is named as the ultimate authority being founded on theological principles and most definitely denounces anarchism and atheism. He further went on to say that America is very patriotic and wish to make all their citizens patriotic Americans.

Assignment 02/13

 

 

Essay: Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov’t by Frank Newport   

"A majority of Americans (56%) say they would be willing to pay less in taxes and accept fewer services, rather than either leaving things as they are now or paying more taxes for more services.
This supports the general position of some conservatives and libertarians, including GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. They argue that citizens should want their government to do less, and thus collect fewer taxes. Liberals, on the other hand, have focused on the value of the services the government provides, particularly in terms of creating jobs and providing a social safety net, and the necessity of keeping tax revenue flowing in order to fund those services. Fewer than half of Americans, however, currently want to keep or add to the level of taxes and services they have now."

The above paragraph is saying, according to the participants in the poll, most Americans wouldn't mind fewer government services for less taxation while less than half wants taxes to remain the same or pay higher.

I choose this paragraph because I don't think we should have to pay more taxes in order to get more or better services. The federal government collects billions each year and should stop unnecessary spending. They need to implement and execute ideas that will significantly change the way they handle the tax payers dollar. By being successful at this would undoubtedly allow the government to do more for the people.