Anti-Federalist

"One party is composed of little insurgents, men in debt, who want no law, and who want a share of the property of others; these are called levellers, Shayites [as in Shay's Rebellion], etc. The other party is composed of a few, but more dangerous men, with their servile dependents; these avaricioulsy grasp at all power and property; you may discover in all the actions of these men, an evident dislike to free and equal government, and they will go systematically to work to change, essentially, the forms of government in this country; these are called aristocrats, m––ites [possibly monarchites?], etc. etc. Between these two parties is the weight of the community; the men of middling property, men not in debt on the one hand, and men, on the other, content with republican governments, and not aiming at immense fortunes, offices, and power (p. 135).

In this week reading the quote that called my attention the most defines two kind of people.  Those who look for a change everyday and those who do not what the change to maintain their elite status. Levellers as called in this quote or abolitionists are the rebels who are able to share what is available to make the world more equal. On the other hand, the elite id aldo described as the few. Those who would do what it takes to maintain their power and status over the others. These are called aristocrats. What catches my attetion the most is how after so many years the struggle between both classes continues to be the same. Nowadays we have the elite 1%, the disappearing middle class and the poor who constantly looks for a way to close the gap between the classes.

In our readings we are able to identify two kinds of federalism. Vertical and horizontal federalism.  Vertical federalism is the kind that sees the federal or national government as the most important government.  The horizontal federalism gives more importance to what each state believes is the norm. 

The Federalist

This week when reading Madison's passages this piece called my attention a lot. "The appointment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pocket (p. 93)." The subject of taxes has always been very controversial. We would think about taxes as something we should always be careful with, but as Madison says taxes are an opportunity for those with power to save an extra penny from their pocket. This quote reminds me a lot of today's debate over taxes and the wealthy 1%. We poor people pay lots of taxes that seem to be taking away our breath while the top people who are able to pay a little bit more saves more money in the bank. Although taxes are "relative" to our income and look "impartial" poor people have always the worse part on it.

When reading Alexander Hamilton's  I chose this part. "A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents (p. 121)." This is mostly what we all know today about the constitution. It called my attention because it might be the place from were we all got a definition of the constitution without knowing. The constitution as Hamilton says is fundamental. It is evident that laws are to be followed and that they help our day by day go smoothly. Between this two quotes I should say Madison's seems to be more realistic and open-minded.  This is the reason why I chose it in the first place, rather than just showing an idealistic point of view Madison showed how even when we think those with power should be doing what is best for us the sometimes do what is best for themselves.

10/8 assignment

Article 4 section 2 of the Constitution:

The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states.

A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime.

No person held to service or labor in one state, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.

This article is very related to my previous blogs on citizenship. It gives citizens the rights and privileges they should all be entitle to. Also, it sets the jurisdiction power of the states. If a person commits a crime in a particular state and travels to another it gives the right to the state to take custody. That state is required to transfer that person to the state that needs it.

Also, this section talks about slavery. It sets laws for fugitive slaves. If a fugitive slave goes to a different state the slave should be returned by the new state. This part of the article has no value since it was amended.


The article I chose from Politico is Obama massages negotiation messaging. This article caugh my attention because of the whole controversy with the government shut down. I agree with Obama's approach because he is trying his best to stop the shut down without acepting the preasure the Republicans are putting on him and America. "But eight days into a government shutdown, with the debt ceiling in danger of being breached as early as Oct. 17, Obama has changed his tenor and tone to avoid taking blame for Washington’s meltdown." This quote I feel summarizes the whole idea of the article. President Obama and his administration do not want to take the blame for the bad decisions and the preassure the Republicans are putting on them. I feel this shutdown is a bad strategy that politiciands are using without thinking in the hardworking people that is affraid of a new recession.

Adams Vs Declaration of Independence

The quote that caught my attention the most is part of Adams "Social Contract":

All Men have a Right to remain in a State of Nature as long as they please: And in case of intollerable [sic] Oppression, Civil or Religious, to leave the Society they belong to, and enter into another.–When Men enter into Society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions, And previous limitations as form an equitable original compact. (p. 40)

This quote has a lot to do with pur previous discussion about citizenship. Adams talks about a natural human right to be part of a State as long as a person wants to. I believe he really means that people should be able to live at a place that represents its interest. Also he points out that people enter a particular society by a voluntary consent and therefore should have rights. These ideas sound like the world that we live in nowadays. Although we are not always able to leave a State or a Country very easily. The idea of entering a society by voluntary consent is what we do as immigrants.

From the Declaration of Independence I chose the most well know paragraph:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness (p. 59).

This paragraph talks about every important thing a democracy should be based on. It is very related to Adams' ideas of natural rights. Also, this piece of the Declaration of Independence talks about how government should preserve these rights. Furthermore, Adams as well as the Declaration of Independence express that a government who does not fulfill its purpose should be overthrown. I chose both of these quotes because they represent the idea of freedom that represents me and most of the people. Despite the fact that these ideals have not been achieved completely; they create the foundations for a better world.

Chesterton's Ideas on American Citizenship

"Now in a much vaguer and more evolutionary fashion, there is something of the same idea at the back of the great American experiment; the experiment of a democracy of diverse races which has been compared to a melting-pot. But even that metaphor implies the pot itself is of a certain shape and a certain substance. The melting-pot must not melt. The original shape was traced on the the lines of Jeffersonian democracy; and it will remain in that shape until it becomes shapeless. America invites all men to become citizens; but it implies the dogma that there is such a thing as citizenship. Only, so far as its primary ideal is concerned, its exclusiveness is religious because it is not racial (p. 9)."

In this quote Chesterton refers to the different cultures and races that form America. He calls the idea of American of welcoming new citizens an experiment. This experiment is seen as failure which will eventually mix so many races that will loose its original shape. The foundation of the American society is called by Chesterton a melting pot.

Citizenship is seen by Chesterton as a questionable set of believes with no real sustainability. He also argues how American princibles are made of Christianity ideas and believes. These ideals of freedom and liberty are the foundation of the declararion of independence. This declaration is against anarchism, poligamy, and atheism the same way as Christianism.

Chesterton also compares the American set of believes and actions with the Spanish Inquisition. During this cruzade Christianism and its believes was the excuse for many wrongful acts. The essay this week is very simmilar in the context of citizenship it shows. As immigrants we have to undergo a set of questions and give up our own ideas of democracy.

Despite of the amount of years it has passed since Chesterton's essay we still have to answer questions that go against our own believes. We no longer have to answer how many husbands or wives we have, but yet we have to give up loyalty to the countries that gave us birth. Chesterton also discusses innequality and seems to understand  it as the result of the comparision people tend to perform in order to try  compete between one and other. He does not see it as something that is real and tangible.

Bourne and Dual Citizenship

D

ual citizenship we may have to recognize as the rudimentary form of that international citizenship to which, if our words mean anything, we aspire. We have assumed unquestioningly that mere participation in the political life of the United States must cut the new citizen off from all sympathy with his old allegiance. Anything but a bodily transfer of devotion from one sovereignty to another has been viewed as a sort of moral treason against the Republic. We have insisted that the immigrant whom we welcomed escaping from the very exclusive nationalism of his European home shall forthwith adopt a nationalism just as exclusive, just as narrow, and even less legitimate because it is founded on no warm traditions of his own. Yet a nation like France is said to permit a formal and legal dual citizenship even at the present time. Though a citizen of hers may pretend to cast off his allegiance in favor of some other sovereignty, he is still subject to her laws when he returns. Once a citizen, always a citizen, no matter how many new-citizenships he may embrace. And such a dual citizenship seems to us sound and right. For it recognizes that, although the Frenchman may accept the formal institutional framework of his new country and indeed become intensely loyal to it, yet his Frenchness he will never lose. What makes up the fabric of his soul will always be of this Frenchness,-so that unless he becomes utterly degenerate he will always to some degree dwell still in his native environment.”

In this piece of writing Bourne talks about the universal citizenship. In my understanding what he means is a form of immigration in which people could travel anywhere and acquire multiple citizenships. Citizens are often required to express loyalty to the country of which they are citizens giving up loyalty to the country in which the where born. This action often creates a conflict of interest. Bourne tries to explain using France as a guide how people can be loyal to multiple countries, one at a time. He explains how each citizen can be subject to the laws and rules of a particular country when being in that country and loyal to other countries in which they are also citizens at any other time.

I decided to focus in this quote written by Bourne moved by my own feelings regarding my country and how as immigrants we have no choice other than promise to give up our roots. In this essay Bourne continuously refers to an important process in which every immigrant redefines itself after immigrating to America. He also refers to how America is made up of immigrants and shows an unfriendly approach to the mixture of cultures. It looks like America has taken multiple cultures to create one which will help the others disappear. Also, this quote shows how to move forward in allowing the new citizens be not only American citizens, but to maintain their own identity outside its new land. The French dual citizenship seems like the ideal of a world where most of the people get to be immigrants at least once and remain faithful to their origins.

Bourne’s ideas were very futuristic. Nowadays, we still have to give up our citizenships in other countries even if we plan to be faithful to America. Bourne mentions a narrow nationalism which can be seen as illegitimate because it has no foundations in the roots of the new citizen. In my own words I can say he means that in America’s idea citizens are supposed acquire their love and loyalty to this country as soon as they decide to become American citizens even if the process happens from one day to the next one.  Despite the fact that some immigrants do not have any reason coming from their hearts or memories loyalty to this country in the eyes of America is an automatic situation.  

In my country the Dominican Republic,   dual citizenship is allowed and is not seen as treason. Therefore, when I first read the allegiance I was confused by the reasons why I should stop being faithful to my country of origins. It is not a secret that I am faithful to both countries and do not see any conflict between loving the Dominica Republic where I was born and the United States the country who has given me the opportunity to grow. In my opinion, Bourne’s essay is a very important eye opener of what the U.S should eventually become an open doors country who gives its best to immigrants and nationals in the same way.  

Welcome

 

Hello Everyone!!!

Welcome to my first blog ever. I look forward to a wonderful semester and to getting to know you through your posts and comments. Good luck to us in this great adventure!!