Saturday, October 26, 2013


Harriman Beepat
Prof. B Murdaco

POL 166
October 29th 2013

Assignment (Due 10/29): Choose a passage from one of the Anti-Federalist writers, write out the passage and give your interpretation of the passage, then explain what this passage means to you or why you chose it.

From anti-federalist # 17: It might be here shown, that the power in the federal legislature, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty. I shall not, however, dwell upon these, as a few observations upon the judicial power of this government, in addition to the preceding, will fully evince the truth of the position.”

          The author of this anti-federalist paper, Brutus, questioned Madison on every one of his unsubstantiated beliefs, about the good quality of this new government created in the Constitution.  While Madison argues that a large nation will benefit citizens by balancing out the dangers of local factions, Brutus argues that such a system will be run by snobby aristocrats, uncaring of the common citizen, and sharing little of their daily concerns.  Furthermore, Brutus wrote that democracy would be best served in smaller territories, where the people share common views.  While the federal government grew larger, the Anti-Federalist concerns over a dictatorial government never materialized. Though in the end, they did gain the passage of the Bill of Rights, which remains one of the most important political documents of the United States.

          Most of the concerns that the anti-federalists wrote about, did indeed came to pass. If one looks at the behavior of our present government, it's as if the writings of the anti-federalists are coming to pass. They saw in the new constitution, threats to their rights and liberties won from England. They not only discuss the issues of the constitution, but numerous questions of this new system of government were also debated. They also questioned whether members of the government should be elected by direct vote of the people? Or whether slavery had its place in a nation dedicated to liberty? These were some of the queries of the anti-federalists, but most importantly, they voiced many viable arguments about the Constitution, and as stated above, they were indeed responsible for the Bill of Rights being added to our blueprint for governing this fledgling country.

Go to the link for "American Politics." Look up the section "Federalism" and explain the differences between horizontal and vertical federalism. 


What is Federalism?
Federalism is a political concept in which the member groups are bound together by covenant with a governing representative head. This term is also used to refer to a system of the government whereby, the sovereignty is constitutionally divided between constituent political units and a central governing authority, the power to govern is shared between provincial/state governments and national, creating a federation. The proponents are called federalists.

What is horizontal federalism?
Horizontal federalism refers to the different ways state governments relate to one another.

What is vertical federalism?
Vertical federalism is the relationship among central, states and local governments vertically. Central government is at the top of the vertical line, and then state government and then local government.

The main difference between horizontal and vertical federalism is the relationship between the national and state governments, referred to as vertical federalism, and horizontal federalism, which is the relationship that exists between the various states.

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_horizontal_federalism.


 

 

 

Monday, October 21, 2013


Harriman Beepat

Prof. Murdaco

POL 166

October 22nd 2013

Assignment (Due 10/22): Choose one passage from Madison and one from Hamilton and write out the passage and interpret it, follow the same format as previous assignments. 

From Madison’s # 10…“Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.”

 

           Liberty and faction are essential in any strong government, but what isn't healthy is the violence of faction, and controlling the effects of violent faction can be achieved through representative methods of governing. Madison continued by making the argument that the means to control the causes of faction is to stamp on rebellious opinions, and remove liberty. Furthermore, he dismisses this as being against the nature of man, and surmises that faction is a normal part of liberty, wrapped in the weaknesses of people. Like a fire that died because it consumed the oxygen from the air, a faction cannot continue its manipulative influence without the liberty it wants to suppress. The underlying causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society.

 

From Hamilton’s # 15…“There is nothing absurd or impracticable in the idea of a league or alliance between independent nations for certain defined purposes precisely stated in a treaty regulating all the details of time, place, circumstance, and quantity; leaving nothing to future discretion; and depending for its execution on the good faith of the parties.”

 

          Clearly Hamilton was referring to the United Nations, even though this organization was formed decades in the future. Though this “league of alliance” was a novel and a noble idea, it is quite impractical in reality, as the present day UN can attest.  As it is at present, and using the UN as an example, one worldwide governing authority would struggle to meet the needs of the diverse and different cultures throughout the world. This is clearly an indication why countries have their own government, which understands and caters to the differences of its people. For any government to try and assimilate the diversity of the world into their structure, it would be a considerable bureaucratic nightmare. Even present day countries cannot meet the needs of their different people that make up their population.

 

Saturday, October 5, 2013


This story is from roll call:    


 
          This government shutdown is really confusing. While some members of Congress retained all their staff, others function with only essential employees. This led me to think, if these members of Congress can function with their barebones staff, why do they need all these people working for them? Just imagine, each member can legally employ twenty two full time employees, plus paid interns. It’s no wonder there is a feeling that there is too much government. This country is just bloated and hemorrhaging money. In 2009 when the economy was at its worst, numerous private companies downsized. In that period, they learnt to do more with the few employees they had. Now these same companies are functioning profitable, without the need to rehire. Maybe this government

Harriman Beepat             

Prof. B Murdaco

POL 166

October 8th 2013

Assignment: Due 10/8… Choose one Article from the Constitution and choose a specific Section and a specific Clause or short paragraph (for example Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5). Write out the clause, interpret it, and explain why you chose this passage.

 

I chose my target sentence from the preamble.

 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

           The emphasis on personal liberty was one of the most noticeable features of this new republic. The Fathers of the nation, on writing the Constitution, took into account the varied political and religious background of its new citizens, especially with regards to suppression. This was instrumental in preserving the freedom of new Americans in the New World. The authors of the Constitution, in giving authority to the Federal authority, were careful to protect the rights of all persons by limiting the powers of both the Federal and State governments. This resulted in laws that guaranteed Americans, the freedom to make their own decisions about jobs, religion, and political beliefs; move from place to place; and go to the courts for justice and protection when they feel these rights are being infringed upon.

           Though there are certain passages in my opinion that are somewhat outdated in the constitution, especially with regards to the burgeoning diversity in this country, one can truly go anywhere, work in any job, believe in any religion, support any political party and sue anyone.