This assignment is for Honors Civics, Period 6.
The weekly assignment consists of five parts:
1) Read the assignments. This week's first reading is from We the People. The second reading is an excerpt from An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. The third reading is an excerpt from Tocqueville's Democracy in America. The fourth reading are two of The Federalist Papers (#10 and #51). If you want to print them out, you can after school.
2) Take Cornell Notes on the readings. I will collect these notes on Friday in class.
3) Find another credible source on the internet that connects to the reading above or to the class topic from this week ("What are the American political ideals"). You can use any of the sites I have listed on the right, or more general news sites like nytimes.com.
4) After you read the source that you find, answer the following questions as a blog entry below:
- Write a summary sentence for the text you found.
- How does the text connect to that week’s topic or to the other text you have read?
- What evidence do you have that the text you found is credible?
- Does the author present strong evidence to support his/her argument? Provide an example.
- What would the author of your text say about one of the class texts from that week?
- What would the author of one of the class texts say about your text from that week?
Keep in mind that everyone else will see what you write below, so please keep it professional. This post is due Thursday, 9/20, by 5:00pm.
5) Come to class on Friday ready to discuss the reading and the text you found!
If you need support or have questions, my office hours are Monday and Wednesday from 3:15-4:15 in Room 229.
The text I found is about Tunisia citizens protesting against President Zine al-Aidine Ben Ali because of the cost of food, political corruption, freedom of speech and basic political rights. These people were trying to
ReplyDeleteoverthrow the president because he misused his powers. Furthermore, this article is also about natural rights not really being considered "natural".
This week's topic is about American Ideals and the founders of the constitution. This text relates to the week's topic because is talking about specific American Ideals such as freedom of speech and natural rights. Freedom of speech is the political right in which people are able to say their opinions and disagree/oppose against the government or anyone. Natural rights is John Locke's political theory which implies that every citizen is born with life, liberty and property.
The text I found is credible because it’s posted by the New York Times. The New York Times is a prestigious news organization in the United States. The source is also credible because it cites other sources, websites and it consist of citations. If this source wasn’t credible it will lose the millions of readers it has.
The author Michael Boylan presents strong evidence to prove his argument. One example is when he states Hart's controversial 1955 article, "Are There Any Natural Rights". With this evidence he implies that natural rights are "an invention of the European Enlightenment, mere social constructions". Boylan also uses John Austin influential work, "Lectures on Jurisprudence" to state that there's no operational concept of right or duty and therefore these ideas of the natural rights did not exist before the European Enlightenment.
The author of my text Michael Boylan, will disagree with the class' text "We The People". He will disagree with this text because this text describes John Locke's theory the rights on individuals specifically the natural rights. John Locke states that in a state of nature all people are free, equal and rational but people will not survive because people would seek personal advantage. This relates to the natural rights because they were implied on to the social contract which gives power to the people and the government. Also this connects to the article because what the citizens of Tusiani used in order to overthrow the president were these natural rights that they were born with ad the social contract. Boylan will disagree with this text because he says that these rights are not "natural" or "true" but they are a social construction that applies only to societies that choose to adopt it.
The author of "We The People" will disagree with Michael Boylan because natural rights are the existence of inalienable rights. Although, these rights were John Locke's theory it was beneficial to the people because it gave the people power and societies didn't have to live under an absolute government. These natural rights gave the ability to create whatever form of government that will suit best to the people and the government will reflect the needs of society and protect individual life, liberty and property. Therefore, even though some people might disagree like Boylan as the natural rights not really being "natural" it was a positive theory with a positive outcome that gave people the control of how they wanted for their needs to be reflected and protected.
What makes a society just? Is it the way situations are handled? Or, is it the orders in which situations are taken care of? As America was becoming to be, many ideals were created as the basic principles of America. One of those ideals was (and still is) the natural rights theory originated from philosopher John Locke. According to John Locke, every man is entitled to “life, liberty, and estate,” as We The People stated. These natural rights are what allow every individual to have the freedom to live their life accordingly, to own land, and to have liberty. Without these inalienable rights, individuals are not entitled to rebellions or to protect themselves. In, Why Should a Supreme Court Justice Care about Natural Rights?, Jim Powell writes an intricate article that explains why a Supreme Court should care and consider an individual’s natural rights. This article is from CATO Institute and also appeared on The Daily Caller on July 9, 2010. Being that it appeared on The Daily Caller (a well-known news publication service) its credibility is not one to question. Within Powell’s article, he involves quotes from President Theodore Roosevelt and historian Sidney M. Milkis which build up his argument to a great extent. He also takes time to incorporate ideas from Thomas Paine to elaborate his writing. When explaining natural rights, Powell writes, “The immortal opening lines of the Declaration affirm that individuals have rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness because they're human beings, regardless what a law might say.” Both Powell and We The People take into consideration the role of philosophy in government and natural rights influences. Helping individuals have an impact upon government, natural rights allows for individuals to, much like freedom of speech, have a say regarding their own government. The Declaration of Independence gives every individual the right to have natural rights. With natural rights, you are able to defend yourself against “intolerance, taxes, censorship, trade restrictions and military conscription…private property, free trade, freedom of association, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, a rule of law, a separation of powers and a written constitution to limit government power,” just as the English apprentice John Lilburne stated as said in Powell’s article. This was the main defense against rebellions and revolutions. Revolutionists such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Martin Luther King used these ideals as their defense for their movements as well. With it, individuals are able to limit the power of higher authority while still keeping order. Powell’s article works hand-in-hand with the focus points taught in We the People because they both agree that natural rights are needed in a society and government. Without it, order wouldn’t exist. This is because both natural rights and government work together to create a perfect balance. When creating a government, the ideologies and theories of philosophers are often helpful. By using the natural rights theory, a society as well as its government is able to grow as a whole; where the people are protected by their own government which does not have absolute power.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/why-should-supreme-court-justice-care-about-natural-rights
Amber Sepulveda
In the United States, we are constantly talking about how every individual should have their fair share of justice and equality. Specifically, we aim at making sure that human rights are being respected. Within the article entitled “North Carolina: Same-sex marriage ban ‘setback’ for human rights”, the Amnesty International organization explains exactly how the rights of individuals who aim at having same-sex marriage are basically revoked because of other individuals who go against it. Amnesty International, a non-profit and non-governmental organization, is a credible source because of the fact that the services it provides towards protecting human rights are acknowledged on a global scale, with more than 3 million members and participants in more than 150 nations. The organization, which was established in 1961, has won numerous awards including the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize and the United Nations Prize in the Field of Human Rights in 1978. In North Carolina, the state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage had been passed due to the approximately 61% of votes it had received from its supporters, while about 40% went against it. This brings us back to the topic of equality; if everyone is supposed to be treated equally, why is it that same-sex marriage is considered to be something that should not be permitted in the very same country that praises the ideas of egalitarianism? This same-sex marriage ban is basically a form of discrimination against the homosexual and bisexual community. Besides the obvious fact that individuals who are homosexual or bisexual are not permitted to marry the person they want to be with, the ban also prevents them from being accepted into society. However, is a society that is not united and cannot accept the opinions of others a good society? The answer to this would be no, especially in the circumstances provided in North Carolina. According to the reading We the People, society must promote common good; there can be arguments and disputes, but society must be able to settle them in a way that benefits everyone within the society. If this is the case today, then such amendments should not even be available. It is a violation of their individual rights and violates the idea of human equality. If America is following the Lockean terms that say our rights are “personal, inherent and inalienable” – regardless of the amount of money we make, our social standing and our birthplace – then it is truly unjust for an amendment to say that it is banning particular individuals from living the same way as others and having them endure judgment from the rest of society. If the Amnesty International organization were to read the class text, We the People, I believe that its members would fully approve of the ideas and beliefs that were shared by the philosophers mentioned such as Locke, Hobbes and Rousseau. If these same philosophers learned about the amendment that was passed in North Carolina, I believe that they would react in dumbfounded to the topic and question why such an amendment would be passed in the first place. In particular, I believe that Locke and/or Rousseau would be the first philosophers to argue against the amendment and explain how it violates the rights of the individuals in the homosexual and bisexual community.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.amnestyusa.org/news/news-item/north-carolina-same-sex-marriage-ban-%E2%80%98setback-for-human-rights
Reference
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57516041-503544/romney-obama-believes-in-redistribution/?tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea
In “Romney: Obama believes in redistribution”, Rebecca Kaplan and Sarah Huisenga present the position by Romney in which he opposes the idea of redistribution of wealth and believes in generating wealth. This relates to this week’s topic of American ideals because at the root of the debate is the common good. Both sides of the argument want to do what is best for the nation. Furthermore, this debate is in the midst of a presidential campaign in which would result in the winner of the election being decided by the people. The principle of republicanism is at play here. Equality is present because people have an opportunity to vote for representatives. People will vote for representatives that best reflective their beliefs and who will best protect their self-interests. The election process best illustrates American political ideals because it is done through a political ideological system and the representative that represents values that are shared amongst the most people will win the election.
This is a credible source because it comes from a major news provider and if it were not credible then it would harm their reputation. Furthermore, this source includes quotes from actual people involved in the election. Having inaccurate quotes from individuals would also ruin the news provider reputation and hurt the candidates themselves in the election process.
The authors of this article help flesh out Romney’s argument with the use of quotes to help highlight his position. In “Romney: Obama believes in redistribution” Romney is quoted saying, “ …I believe the way to lift people and help people have higher incomes is not to take from some and give to others, but to create wealth for all of us". Clearly, Romney is against redistribution of wealth and his plan is to generate wealth. The authors present sufficient quotes to help this article promote a perspective. It presents Romney’s view on the issue of managing wealth and also mentions Obama's opposing side of the debate.
One text that the authors of “Romney: Obama believes in redistribution” can relate to is We the People. In We the People the idea of common good is presented. It states, "...the Roman Republic had done the best job of promoting the common good-that is, doing what is best for the society as a whole". The common good involves acting upon which would turn out to be the best for the whole society. Romney’s argument is directed at the opposing view. By doing so he can weaken the opposing argument and make his argument sound better. The common good can operate here because each candidate wants to do what he sees fit and will benefit the nation the most. The author of An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution can relate to the current issue surrounding this presidential election. In this reading the Constitution is looked through an economic lens. Charles Beard states, "...class and group divisions based on property lie at the basis of modern government; and politics and constitutional law are inevitably a reflex of these contending interests". “Romney: Obama believes in redistribution” suggests that economics is at the base of the debate. There is a disagreement in the method of managing wealth. This is similar to An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution because it presents two hypothetical situations. One situation is where there are no economic divisions and one where there are economic divisions. This is portrayed in the current article because pro-distribution and -anti-distribution are influenced by wealth and social class like Beard mentions in An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution. The creation of the Constitution was influenced by personal interest and is reflected in the presidential election and government practices.
The idea of overthrowing the government has existed in the ideals of America since the writing of the declaration of independence. This week the source I found was of Mali, in Mali the government was overthrown and was replaced by a “civilian government led by an interim president”. The soldiers were angry over the government’s mishandling of a rebellion by nomadic Tuareg rebels in the country’s vast northern desert.
ReplyDeleteThe overthrowing of this government shows the American ideal of being able to be able to do just that and is expressed in that way. The source was from the New York Times a website that is known to be a website that makes sure that their story is right before they publish and for this reason the source is credible. The President of Mali was later overthrown again as the New York time says “Mr. Traoré‘s future as president came into question in May, when a mob of angry protesters stormed the presidential palace and beat him into unconsciousness.” This shows that this is the second time that the government was overthrown. If the writers of the constitution were to witness this overthrow then they would support the overthrowing of the government since that government was not protecting the rights of the people. This leads you to believe that if the coup in Mali saw the Declaration they would disagree with it to some point. As the text says the government they overthrew was a democratic mode, which is expressed when the author says “Mali, a former French colony, is a West African nation that had often been cited as a democratic model.”. Seeing this the coup would oppose the Declaration of independence if they don’t handle certain situations with precision.
In the end the writers of the constitution would support the overthrow of the government because the people of the nation were not happy with the overall performance of the government. However the coup would not want to be a part of the declaration of independence because the very government they overthrew was a democratic one in fact one of the most renowned democratic governments in the world.
Source: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/mali/index.html
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/preamble
ReplyDeleteThe text I found online elaborates on the Preamble and its meaning. The main goals of the Preamble consist of creating a just government, the ensurement of peace, national adequate defense, and a healthy, free nation.
This text connects to this week’s topic on American values because the Preamble addresses the importance of an American’s rights, as listed above. This text also addresses freedom of speech when it states, “the preamble emphasizes that the nation is to be ruled by the people - not a king or a dictator, not the president, Supreme Court justices, members of Congress or state legislators.” Here, the value of freedom of speech becomes evident because it gives the individual political right and importance of dissent which can lead to various opposing views and controversy. Although the Preamble may be interpreted in different ways, some rule that the Preamble is neither a source of power or individual rights. Those who are pro-individualism value self- independence and self reliance and also oppose external interference- similar to laissez-faire capitalism.
The evidence I have found which makes this text credible is that this text is the actual Preamble- the introduction to the Constitution. Also, this website is Civics-based for high school, mainly. This text also provides a valid interpretation using the Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1905 case as an example to state that the Preamble is not a source of power or individuals’ rights.
The author of the Preamble would say that Chapter 2 of “We the People” includes valid beliefs because it elaborates on moral education- civic virtue must be learned; symbols, rituals of the society. Also, Chapter 2 of “We the People” relates to the Preamble’s idea of how political ideas should be focused on the rights of the individual, which evidently presents the value of individualism, again.
The author of “We the People” (Chapter 2) would agree that the writer(s) of the Preamble emphasize on the good of a union. In “We the People”, the author mentions how the ancient Roman Republic influenced the Founders with a goal of promoting the common good- “Virtue”, as Sandel would say. Also, being said that the Preamble focuses on a “perfect union”, the author of “We the People” suggests that humans need each other; members of a country should be fundamentally alike.
-Karla Arroyo
HONOR Civics
1) The New York Times’ article “Income Inequality,” from Times Topics is about how the protest called Occupy Wall Street raised up the issue of income inequality in America. It then goes on to say how both political parties have tried to take advantage of this topic to win the people’s favor for their own advantage. But one of the main points the article discusses is how government has done little to fix the concentration of income and how the top 1% has doubled profits over the previous 3 decades, plus how recently their tax rates have increased likewise.
ReplyDelete2) This week my class discussed about the seven American values which includes equality. In class we read quotes in which some were taken from the Declaration Of Independence. The quote started with the line, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” (Line 1). The main part here is “all men are created equal.” Though in the modern world of today this may or may not hold true. Should it be true it fails to describe how equality is maintained for that man that is created equal. In the article “Income Inequality” we begin to see that as that man grows equality is not maintained and in this article it discusses the economic gaps between the top one percent and the rest of the population.
3) This article is published by the New York Times which is a prestigious newspaper business. This article appears to be a special release since it did not state the author’s name but instead had the name “Times Topics” as the author. This shows that most likely multiple people worked on this article to portray the “New York Times” take on the issue. This article also is credible because it has interactive pictures that show the data that they have collect and written about to inform the people.
4) The author of this article does present strong evidence by providing statistics and referring to reports made by the government. One strong evidence used is “The debate took on greater specificity with the release of a report in October 2011 by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office confirming that income inequality had grown in the United States.” Here they have evidence that is in favor of their point that income inequality has grown right from the government’s mouth.
5) The author of the article would say equality isn’t the only American value that is controversial. Freedom of speech in on the same boat as equality where there has been countless times where it has been restricted and flat out denied. There has also been a time when people didn’t elect their representatives and violates the value of republicanism (before the socialist’s parties’ ideas were admitted as law senators were elected by people already in power and not by the people).
6) Thomas Rochowicz, creator of the class topic and lessons, would agree that there has been a rise in income inequality as the rich get richer and the poor just stay poor (unless they win the lottery). Rochowicz would also agree that the role capital gains are disproportionally distributed through the higher income households.
external source:
Deletehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/i/income/income_inequality/index.html
The New York Times article “Health Panel Approves Restriction on Sale of Large Sugary Drinks” by Michael Grynbaum discuses the new law in New York City that does not allow sugary drinks over 16 ounces to be sold in the city. Many opposes to this law say that the government is going to far by saying what they can or can’t buy. In away this law is violating there rights as individuals to chose what they want to consume. This article is from a qualified reported from the New York Times; a highly well know new paper that will lose much of its credibility if it does not pose the truth. The texts states “By imposing this ban, the board has shown no regard for public opinion or the consequences to businesses in the city” Therefore showing how the public opinion was not highly taken into consideration when creating this new ban. Grynbaum would disagree with the ideas given in chapter two of “We The People” Because it states “republicanism placed the needs of people as a community above individual” Therefore this is arguing that the government should worry more about the entire populations needs over individual needs. That is what was done in New York City with the soda ban to lower health problems. That Grynabaum would say that is not valid because a large amount of businesses would lose money, which is also a large group part of the community. The writer of “We The People” would argue that its better is most of the people are benefitting from the law then just a few groups of companies are being negatively affected.
ReplyDeleteLiberalism is defined by Paul Starr has “a force for liberation, or at least liberalization—
ReplyDeletefor the opening up of channels of free initiative.” (35) Which can be connected to the American ideals of constitutionalism, republicanism and how liberalism ideas were present in the formation of the Constitution. “Why Liberalism Works” an article written by Paul Starr a Priscenton professor of sociology and social affairs. In his article Starr defines the different types of liberalism while at the same time criticizing conservatism and conservatists such as George Bush. During our lecture republicanism was noted to be when the people elect their representatives, such has when each state choose their delegates for the Constitutional Convention in order to draft a new framework for the United States government. This had to be done so that the government could better protect the individuals rights of land, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Constitutionalism concedes that while being under the Rule of Law, the government is still limited in its power. This is apparent in America by the system of checks and balances.
“By enlisting cooperation and reducing the odds of impulsive and narrowly self-interested decisions, consultation with other branches of government and with international allies contributes to a democratic state’s power as well as its responsible use.” (39). This American ideal is apparent in the Constitution since in its making the delegates made the 3 branches of government; judicial, executive and legislative and the balance of power in America.
My text is credible since it came from an expert in its related field. The author uses examples to prove his various points such has when Starr states “In short, it is an error to see guarantees of liberty as a source of state weakness. From its beginnings in 17th and 18th-century England and America, constitutional liberalism contributed to the development of states that proved not only economically but also militarily successful, even when challenged by regimes more devoted to martial values.”(35). Starr would agree with We the People, most when it is talking about individual rights and the limitation of government in page 17 specially if it is pointed out how it better serve the people to have such a government. I believe the author of We the People would agree with Starr on the principals of liberalism being used to guarantee the rights of the people and protect their freedom.
http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/articles/articles07/Starr.WhyLiberalismWorks.pdf
DeleteRomney gets it backward from factcheck.org is an article describing the mistakes Mitt Romney has made during the last couple of days in saying President Obama was apologizing for American values. This text connects to this week’s topic (American political ideals) in numerous ways. In this text, we learn about what presidential nominees do in order to gain people’s vote. Romney has to lie in order to get individuals on his side of the spectrum. This connects to the idea of individualism where the individual has the right to elect their own political leader. However, the individual is often influenced into one side or the other; by lying Romney thought he could gain more people to favor him in the election. The evidence that I have that the text I found is credible is that the text was published in a really prestigious four year institution (University of Pennsylvania). I am not sure, but my guess is that it was published by current graduate students because it has no apparent professors name. Adding on, the author provides strong evidence to support his argument in various ways. For example, the author provides us a timeline to show each and every time Romney committed the mistake of saying President Obama was apologizing for American values. The author also points out (after giving his evidence) that, “Then, as now, Romney’s claim of Obama “apologies” falls flat.”
ReplyDeleteBoth the Letter to Abigail Adams and Farrand’s Records at the constitutional convention protect the equality of all individuals. In 1787, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to Abigail in which he discussed the fact that individuals should be treated equal, or they are bound to rebel against their ruler. For example, “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.” Here, Jefferson implies that he agrees with the fact of individuals rebelling against their government, therefore he should try and treat everyone equal. On the other hand, Roger Sherman’s ‘Farrand’s Records’ at the constitutional convention suggests that one individual should be equal to another. For example Sherman states, “The question is not what rights naturally belong to men; but how they may be most equally and effectively guarded in society.” Both quotes show protection of equal rights for everyone because both authors agree on the believe of natural rights where the government should meet the rights of the people and if they fail to do so, they can be overthrown. Adding on, Thomas Jefferson (author of the letter written to Abigail Adams) would agree with Brooks Jackson (author of Romney gets it backward) in the sense that both agree this nation was founded on the sole principles of equality, individualism, constitutionalism and republicanism. However, Brooks Jackson (author of Romney gets it backward) would not agree with Roger Sherman (author of Farrand’s Records) in the sense that Sherman believes strongly in constitutionalism and rule of law, while Jackson believes in rationale and what is morally right (not lying in order to get votes from individuals favoring your opponent).
The text I found is an article from the New York Times and is about a tea party movement of which is a political movement. This text connects to this week’s topic because it relates to the political ideals created by the founding fathers and the American values. Furthermore, this article is specifically about the ideal of republicanism. The text I found is credible because it is from the New York Times a popular newspaper and website all over New York. This source is also credible because the article comes from a very successful newspaper where irrelevant information won’t be published because a lot of readers and viewers would be lost. The author does provide strong evidence because he has information about Congress and recent presidential campaigns that have to do with the Republicans to prove how the Republicans are trying take control of the House of Representatives. The author of my text would agree with what the author of We the People wrote about the Republicanism because everything written by the author about the Constitution is accurate. The author of my text would argue that Republicanism should stay the way it has been planned by the founding fathers because it results in the citizens to be equal in the way that citizens have devotion to work for the common good. Similarly, it will keep the citizens united and equal where Constitutionalism can be provided for Americans in an equal matter. Also the author of my text would support his opinion with ideas similar to “...But government should not take from one person’s income to provide for another’s health or well-being”. The author of We the People would use the Declaration of Independence to identify the important philosophical ideas in the government. The author will also use the values of the natural rights like the state of nature to signify the idea of individual rights, popular sovereignty, limited government and human equality. All of these ideals relate to each other in a way that creates what America is today and how the political systems work.
ReplyDeletehttp://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/t/tea_party_movement/index.html
I came across an article titled, “Self-interest above Kids” by Cal Thomas. This article was majorly about how teachers in Chicago are putting their own concerns about their salaries and medical coverage above teaching children attending public schools in the area. The topic of our class was “What are the American political ideals?” This relates to this article because one of the ideals, self-interest. Self-interest is very closely related to individualism and a person’s right to be independent, self-reliant and oppose external interference, such as the government, or in this case a boss. This source is credible because it is from the Bowling Green Daily News, a local newspaper in Bowling Green, Kentucky established over 100 years ago in the area. Additionally, the article includes various references from a variety of sources such as results of Gallup Polls reporting parent opinions on public schools, citations from World Magazine and statements given by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs claiming, “The president doesn’t believe that vouchers are a long-term answer to our educational problems...”
ReplyDeleteIn the article, Thomas emphasizes his belief in the importance of student education rather than the teacher’s own personal desires when he writes, “The public school system has been unable to consistently produce nearly enough well-rounded graduates capable of supporting themselves or contributing to the nation. Yet, public school students, especially the poor and minorities, remain locked in failed schools…” In other words, Thomas has a pre-conceived idea that youth today is not meeting the standards in education they should. When these teachers strike and refuse to teach, not only are they putting a stop to their jobs, but a stop to the growth of the insight and development of their students and their potential to improve the community later on with their education.
If Thomas and Tocqueville were to read each other’s writing, both would agree that individualism is a valuable and respectful ideal in United States politics, but when interpreted incorrectly can lead to the downfall of a community. According to Tocqueville, self-interest, when acted on correctly, results in an individual’s sacrifice for the overall well-being of the community as a whole. With the teachers’ strike in Chicago, these teachers are in fact sacrificing their jobs; however they are potentially harming the community. Thomas would argue that without the availability of teachers, students in the area are unable to get the education they need. Without education being provided to them, these children will be missing out on opportunities relating to education that can determine their outcome in college and overall success in life. Additionally, Tocqueville would suggest that because of this group’s ignorance and excessive selfishness regarding self-interest, disgrace and repercussions will be brought about to the community “lest they [the teachers] should have to sacrifice something of their own well-being to the prosperity of their fellow creatures.” Also, both Thomas and Tocqueville would conclude that the intentions of these teachers have the right idea, but their way of conveying it is skewed. This strike is a microcosm of government. The teachers are “the people” and the head of the school is the government. Since the school is not providing the benefits and demands of the teachers, through the union, the teachers are allowed to protest until their needs are fulfilled, similar to our own system. According to Locke, and Rousseau, if the government is not meeting the demands of the governed, the people have the right to revolt not only to protect their inalienable rights, but also to uphold their freedom of speech, an important quality to individualism. Both writers would agree that asserting individualism is acceptable if done in a beneficial matter to all.
ReplyDelete“On Torture and American Values” is an article from the New York Times that was published October 7th,2007 and describes a situation where former President George W. Bush had created secret prisons that held people without charges who were later killed and tortured. This connects to this week’s topic because they both speak on American values and how in this case people world-wide respect these values. In this week’s topic some American values and founding ideals include republicanism, constitutionalism, individualism, equality, private property, and freedom of speech. These values were not put into account when Bush created this prison as stated in the article,”[Bush] conducted a systematic campaign to mislead Congress, the American people and the world about those policies. This article is credible because it comes from the New York Times Newspaper which is a news organization that can be categorized as reputable. The New York Times has also been around for a long time and has been able to gain many subscribers by including false information their business will be jeopardized. The author of the article provides strong evidence because he included specific information about what exactly happened after the attacks of 9/11 with the detention camps and states that the Central Intelligence Agency workers were told to get information from prisoners who were captured. The author also lists the methods that were used to tortured the captured such as exposing them to extreme ranges of heat or cold and simulated drownings. The author of “On Torture and American Values” would say in response to this topic’s week that the values covered were not being exemplified in this case because the right to create such a prison was not mentioned or implied in the constitution which goes again the value of constitutionalism, citizens were also lied to in the sense that they were mislead about the policies of this prison. The author would also state that these founding ideals are ones that any country should admire because they limit the government’s power and the people’s power as well. The author of the class text would also agree with the author of “On Torture and American Values” because American values shape America and are a good example of what other nations should strive to become.
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/4908
ReplyDeleteThe text I found is focuses on the difference between “Natural Rights,” and how it has been used in historical events such as the American Revolution and bombing at Bastille.
This text connects to chapter two of “We the People.” In my text, “Natural Rights” is suggested to be frequently described as God-given. In other words, rights are given to the people by the higher power, God. In “We the People,” the author discusses that since the 1600s, “a century of revolution and civil war,” political philosophers have developed and refined ideas in order to deny the validity of “divine right,” which also means the power given by God, and to enforce the belief that self-government is required to establish a just society. However, “We the People” described the “Natural Rights” philosophy as living in a state of nature, with no government. No legitimate authority to create and enforce rules and maintain order.
The text is credible because the article is written by AWR Hawkins, a Texas Tech University graduate with a PhD in military history. The article is published by theSociety for the Advancement of Freedom in Europe (SAFE). The author has a strong sense of political affairs around the world.
The author presents strong evidence. He refers to sources such as The New York Times, who state, “The Constitution is out of step with the rest of the world in failing to protect, at least in so many words, [an]…entitlement to food, education and health care,” to support his claim of human rights and the US Constitution not recognizing and protecting enough rights, with hyperlinks. He also refers to historical examples such as the American Revolution and the storming of Bastille to further establish his point. He also quotes Edmund Burke, “contract with eternal society.”
The author of my text will most likely disagree with the author of “We the People.” He would state that natural rights are the rights appointed by God and not the self-government the author of “We the People” believe. He uses the storming of Bastille to suggest the real motive for its effect, “And by 1791, as the details of these overarching goals effervesced beneath the steady march of the Jacobins, it was apparent that “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity” would be sought as a way to secure the ‘rights of man.’”
The author of “We the People” will disagree with the author of my text, and state that natural rights means to live in a place of no government, no recognizable authority, and creation or enforcing of rules. The author uses the Declaration of Independence as the source of changing the thoughts of philosophers over time from natural rights, to a more organized, constitutional government, “That to secure the Rights, Government are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed.”
-Ashley Prenza
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/24/us/politics/24immig.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article comes from he New York Times and explains the new law created in Arizona towards the immigrants. This article takes place when the law was started to move towards the government of Arizona. Arizona was making some kind of law to banish immigrants out of their state of Arizona. This law seems to change the view of how the United Stares government is working out.
This article connects to this week’s topic because it includes one important ideal, which is equality, freedom of speech, individualism and republicanism.
This source is credible because it comes from the New York Times and this company is well known to give the most updated news of the country and the world. But this author has a history with the news report and has been working since 1998. Also the author has been working with other newspaper like The Los Angeles Daily News, and The San Diego Tribune. Even though the author might seem to have some disagreements with his background, he doesn’t let his opinions to go to his writing.
The article might not have strong support but the author is showing the views of other people. But seems that he would argue more about the decision been made by the Arizona government. The author of this article would not argue but would follow the 15th amendment. In the first section of the 15th amendment states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude”. Now the author would strongly agree with this and would say that the immigrants in Arizona should have a voice and a representation towards the government of Arizona. Even with the constitution created for everyone living in America would say this is discrimination. The constitution would give help toward the immigrants because they are also humans and should be treated equally. At least the immigrants can have some kind of representation, that’s what both evidence would advice towards the decision of the Arizona law.
The article I found this week is called “A Conservative Law Professor on the Obvious Constitutionality of Obamacare” by Henry Paul Monaghan. This article was about how the Obamacare’s mandate was seen as constitutional. Furthermore, this article was about the Affordable Care Act and how this law establishes health insurance reforms that could help benefit the common American. This week the topic covered in class was American ideals which consist of republicanism, constitutionalism, individualism, equality, private property, and freedom of speech. However, this article relates to this week’s topic because it targets one of the main American ideals such as equality. Equality is when an individual has the same rights and opportunities as those around him/her. For example, Monaghan writes “Virtually all of us will need and obtain health care at some point, but we often cannot predict when or in what ways we will need it. This statement clarifies that in terms of health care people should be equal. People should be equal in obtaining health care because as stated in the Declaration of Independence one of the unalienable rights if the right to life. Therefore, financial or social status should not deprive any citizen from having the opportunity to a health plan. The article I found is credible because it is from The New Republic, an American magazine that focuses on politics and the arts. The first piece of evidence that proves that this article is credible is that Henry Paul Monaghan is the Harlan Fiske Stone Professor reach stability because they tend to rely on the others around them for their own interest. In terms of the Affordable Care Act people will have to go back to the American ideal of individualism because unless they take action for their own health nobody else will. On the other hand, the author of “We the People” would also agree with Monaghan. Without natural rights, the people, and government stability would not be reached. One piece of evidence that proves that this article is credible is that Monaghan is a professor of Constitutional Law at Columbia Law School. Another piece of evidence that proves that this article is credible is that it was written on April 16, 2012 which means it was written recently about the events that are currently occurring in the United States at this moment. A third piece of evidence that proves that this article is credible is that Monaghan uses many examples to show why the mandate was seen as constitutional and in support to this gives his own perspective of the issue. Henry Paul Monaghan uses strong evidence to support his argument that the Affordable Care Act is beneficial to individuals although the justices in the judicial branch see the issue as a burden upon society. This evidence includes that the market is different. Another piece of evidence is the opposition between life and death. Finally a third piece of evidence is that this law should be passed because most get insurance. The author of this article, Monaghan would agree with the class text “We the People” for several reasons. First of all, in “We the People” John Locke’s natural rights theory is highlighted to prove that every individual is born with natural rights. In the case that every human should have the right to obtain health care then the human’s right to life is being protected. Another reason why Monaghan would agree with the class text is because Locke writes about humans in a state of nature in reference to Rousseau’s Social Contract Theory about how individuals should have a government in order to have stability. However, even with a government, all humans that come from a free state of nature do not Overall, it is only these factors that help conclude that the absolute power comes from the people and the needs that have to be met.
ReplyDeleteThe source that I found is called "Balancing Business and Human Rights" by Judy Dempsey, and published by The New York Times. The article that I found is about the human rights of the people of Berlin,Germany, when it comes to business and trade.
ReplyDeleteThis article illustrates an idea of the rights that the people possess when they are involved in economic exchanges for goods. According to the ideas of John Locke written in the Declaration of Independence, the natural rights of every human being are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" but when dealing with economic success, these rights undergo a state of conversion into privileges. Dempsey emphasizes the struggles of the people of German society when she talks about the values of the Confederation of German Industry. Dempsey also brings forth to our attention a statement made by these businesses when she said "they said that democratic countries doing business with authoritarian regimes, like Kazakhstan [a large area right below Russia], must not ignore human rights for the sake of trade." This argument is made to approach the belief of ancient philosophers. Businesses should not violate the human rights of their consumers just because they want economic success.
The dispute over price gouging is an vastly argued by philosophers all over because they also believe that manipulating an individual into paying more money to obtain their necessities, strips them from their freedom to do otherwise. Although, they can decide not to, they have to due to their economic state or to sustain themselves and their families. Businesses also tend to become obsessed with the idea of money and power, therefore they begin to eliminate competition by regulating their prices. This is also something philosophers argue because eliminating a different business from power, deprives them from their right to property or prosperity. This connects to their ideas, such as civic virtue and natural rights in chapter 2 of We The People because during the chapter, it states that natural rights philosophy "argued that humans are not naturally social and traced government to an imaginary state of nature.
Additionally, the author of We The People would agree with Dempsey because they both argue against the action of depriving an individual from his or her natural rights, in order to selfishly gain something else, such as wealth, social power, or economic success.
- Rossy Barahona, Period 6.
Link: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/16/fashion/women-still-fighting-for-workplace-equality-books-of-style.html?_r=0
ReplyDeleteThis article talks about the inequality in the business world for women in the labor force. Liesl Schillinger talks about how more men are getting better jobs like C.E.O or becoming partners etc. Also those men earn more money on average than women do and have a higher likelihood of getting promoted or better assignments. She also gives various examples throughout history of women being accepted in the work force not by men but other women who risen up and taken action for their fellow women.
My article about women working in the force connects to this week’s American value of equality. The whole article talks about the inequality of the women in the work force. They should stand up to for their rights to gain better job opportunities. Which also includes the belief of freedom of speech. Liesl Schillinger also shares different examples throughout history how women slowly started to gain power but never actually have had enough to be equal to men. She mentions that on March 16, 1970 Eleanor Holmes Norton and her well-educated female followers demanded that female employees to be accepted in the editor and writer track. This idea here connects to this week’s topic of freedom of speech and how the women are going around expressing their ideas of women being accepted in higher role jobs.
The reason my source is credible is because it comes from an actual publisher to the New York Times named Liesl Schillinger. She also uses actual credible examples throughout history that are real and you can search up. Also she talks in a very general point of view of women she is not directly focusing on a type of women to write about. Also the source cite New York Times is known for delivering trustworthy information that people can trust and not just anybody can post something on the times.
The author does use strong evidence to support her argument that women are not being treated equally in the work force. She mentions Eleanor Holmes Norton and how she “demanded female employees be intergrated into the editor-and- writer track”. She also refrences women at Time Inc. and the Civil Rigths Act of 1964 and how it made it illegal to discriminate workers by gender. She also mentions a newsweek cover story published by three women who talk about the statuses of women in the work force.
What I think Liesl would say about the Decalration of Independence is that she would modify it to say that all men and women are created equal instead of only man since that what started the push and controversy of womens equality. She would also argue that the Declarationof independence does not prove to be “self evident that all man are created equal” In fact she would only agree on later when the Declaration of Sentiments and brought the voice of the women out to the country.
I think George Washington would agree with Leisl in that “Mankind left to themselves are unfit for their own government”. Leisl ideals prove George Washington right because mankind alone are unfit for their government since mankind has not satisfied all it people in the terms of equality. He would support this cause so that he can show how govermetn cannnot be left to the average man and are unfit to rule them.
The text I found was based on Libya and its movement toward the rule of law. The author of the piece also states what she believes should be changed as they move toward the “rule of law”. This text is credible because it is part of the New York Times a news magazine in New York that rights pieces about politics, business, science and more. This text relates to our class topic of American ideals because it has to do with the shift to “rule of law” which is a key aspect of constitutionalism. Sarah Leah Whitson the author of the piece I found demonstrates the Libya is building a militia, a fair justice system, and rebuilding basic institutions. She also states. She also states how Libya in the past has abused human rights, which include 5,000 detainees outside of Libya’s laws. Then she states how the transitional council is helping them make its new justice system to protect its citizen’s tights. The author also adds some changes that she believes are important on their shift to the rule of law such as giving all Libyans protection under the law and not restricting what they read or with who they associate.
ReplyDeleteThe author of my article would like the concepts of classic republicanism and the social contract that was stated in We The People. She would say that the citizens in Libya would be better off if they were to go by classic republicanism. The author of We The people would agree with the changes that should be done to Libya because they would preserve the citizens natural rights. Both We The People and my text in Libya Building, the Rule of Law the authors’ show that the shift to constitutionalism is for the common good. We the people shows how a social contract should be established in or to not be in a state of nature. But they citizen’s natural rights should be preserved in doing so which is why the declaration of independence added aspect of the natural right theory. In Libya Building, the Rule of Law it show the rule of law can better the lives of the Libyans by creating a more fair system of justice in order to protect their human rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/30/opinion/in-libya-building-the-rule-of-law.html