Representative institutions no longer represent voters. Instead, they have been short-circuited, steadily corrupted by an institutionalized system of bribery that renders them responsive to powerful interest groups whose constituencies are the major corporations and wealthiest Americans. The courts, in turn, when they are not increasingly handmaidens of corporate power, are consistently deferential to the claims of national security. Elections have become heavily subsidized non-events that typically attract at best merely half of an electorate whose information about foreign and domestic politics is filtered through corporate-dominated media. Citizens are manipulated into a nervous state by the media’s reports of rampant crime and terrorist networks, by thinly veiled threats of the Attorney General and by their own fears about unemployment. What is crucially important here is not only the expansion of governmental power but the inevitable discrediting of constitutional limitations and institutional processes that discourages the citizenry and leaves them politically apathetic

This passage explains how society's changes are effecting the substantial qualities of elections. The media plays a direct role in the way people analyzes themselves and others, therefore, politics can now turn to the media to help gain an audience that would otherwise follow the norm.Also, while the media is generalizing the issues Americans face daily, its allows for people to worry less about voting and focus on the issues the state deems necessary. While everyone is distracted the government gains more power and authority to make changes where they see fit.

Loving vs Virginia

In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).

The Supreme Court decided that Virginia's antimiscegenation law violated the Equal Clause of the 14th Amendment by reminding the state that any deliberations made against someone based solely off race, was "odious to free people" and could be subject to "the most rigid scrutiny". While the state argued, the court ruled, the state had no legitimate reason to discriminate against the union based off racial classification and deemed with no relation to "rational purpose". The state also violated the Due Process clause which clearly states "Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State.

I believe this topic is important because it proved how much effort went into regaining independence and individuality within states and communities. It allowed the people to have control over their own families and unions with out being accused of crimes.Most importantly the freedom to marry between races helped to disseminate the idea of equality after the effects of slavery, segregation and discrimination .

"A more perfect union"

In this speech, Obama describes his views on the current issues that America faces, however as he emphasizes the problems he connects  and highlights  the overdrawn effects of slavery and the way in which they counter-exist with modern day discrimination. He says "the legacy of defeat has been passed on to future generations", meaning the all of the pain endured throughout slavery still trickles upon the black generation, which he admits is the reason that "prevents us from forming the alliance that needs real change". As he  goes on to defend the black race in the way that they may think or feel, he readily suggests that its up to one to decide to break away from the barrier that will keep a nation from forming as one. He stated while "the anger is not always productive, it is real" and to ignore the stem of the situation that was created by our owns Nation hands is just not that simple. He referred to African Americans with hate in their hearts as "black anger " and Americans as "white resentment", the tension that stagnates us as a whole from moving forward and tackling the real issues that threaten America. At that point in time and to date, Obama carefully and truthfully pointed out the flaws each race carries as baggage and as a result hinders the relationship that is needed to move forward, as he acknowledges the past and does not show mercy upon the acts of slavery and discrimination , he seems as he saying its time for everyone to admit the present days and the future will not flourish until each person decides to let go.

I chose to highlight this aspect of this speech because I feel like he was mediating while remaining neutral. His choice of words and metaphors were beyond understood and helped me to gain a consciousness about history  by connecting what I've learned throughout this semester with his view point along with politics.

“What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?”

What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelty to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy — a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour.

In this passage Douglass expresses his concern for the "American Slave" during a time of salvation. He emphasizes on the a day of American rejoice, is the same day that forces blacks remember all the pain endured, during the very time Independence day was in development.  He seems to speak for all when blacks by  comparing  the nations mockery of  Independence Day to the real action opposed upon slaves, which he quotes as "a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages". Although in the previous passages he praises the founding fathers for reformation thus far, this passage describes the uncertainty and raw emotion of blacks as they try to  distinguish between their past and futures.

Declaration of sentiments (Post due 4/2/16)

"We hold these truths to be self evident;that all women and men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consents of the governed. Whenever any form of Government becomes destructive of theses ends, it is the right of those who suffer from  it to refuse allegiance to it............Such has been the patient sufferance of the women under this government, and such is now the necessity which constrains them to demand the equal station to which they are entitled."

In this passage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton directly quotes the Declaration of Independence while adding the concerns and efforts of the American women whom seem to be left out of society. She highlights the Governments promise to America which entails equality and a system that serves the people accordingly while maintaining a higher purpose. She reminds the readers that in any event where the people feels neglected or under served by the governing body, it becomes the right of the people to speak up and demand change because the only persons that will suffer are the people. She emphasized that law makers are so adamant to change and have become so accustomed to their way of thinking they rather be seen as enforcers rather than to do what is morally right. At this point she begins to identify her main arguments by declaring women as the current sufferers ready to gain civil rights.

I chose this passage because I feel like the author identified and captured the attention needed before stating  the  supporting facts.

Post due Saturday 3-26-16

                                                           John C. Calhoun
   

Calhoun was the first Southern statesman of primary eminence to say openly in Congress what almost all the white South had come to feel. Slavery, he affirmed in the Senate in 1837, "is, instead of an evil, a good—a positive good." By this he did not mean to imply that slavery was always better than free labor relations, but simply that it was the best relation between blacks and whites. Slayery had done much for the Negro, he argued. "In few countries so much is left to the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or . . . more kind attention paid to him in sickness or infirmities of age." His condition is greatly superior to that of poorhouse inmates in the more civilized portions of Europe. As for the political aspect of slavery, "I fearlessly assert that.the existing relation between the two races in the South.. forms the most solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions."



John C. Calhoun, a southern white-man with a seat in Congress, publicly expressed his desire and point view of slavery. He argued how slavery was not to be thought of as a punishment or an effort to exploit blacks, but a relationship necessary between the two races that enforced development and understanding of one another. He emphasized that the slave benefited from the correlation just as much as the master. For example, who else would care for the slaves in depth, also he compared their status to other slaves living in worse conditions. He seemed to idealize the slaves and labor work as the key to a solid, never-ending foundation.


I chose this paragraph because I feel it is a  debatable topic with strong opinions, much of what we are used to seeing today in politics. Also I think its  important to understand the prevalence of the south during that time until now, along with  its evolution upon the nation and the "Founding Fathers" of the U.S

"Sometimes prison sentences, even the most severe, are a rational response to a crime. But often,sentences are the product of a political process in which politicians are scared of appearing soft on crime so they so they do not even question the reasonableness of a proposed criminal law. It is the norm, not the exception, for politicians to reflexively push for harsher sentences without considering empirical evidence about what level of sanction is necessary for deterrence or what impact a sentence will have on communities."

Although some imprisonment sentences are deemed equivalent to the crime, the majority of the time, sentences are determined based upon the  decision makers ability to appear competent and superior.Often this leads to the neglect of identifying the actual law for each crime.Instead, now politics has officially become influential over how a person gets penalized for a crime without referring back to evidence or the law proposed for that specific crime.

 

What we emphatically do not want is that these distinctive qualities should be washed out into a tasteless, colorless fluid of uniformity. Already we have far too much of this insipidity, -- masses of people who are cultural half- breeds, neither assimilated Anglo-Saxons nor nationals of another culture. Each national colony in this country seems to retain in its foreign press, its vernacular literature, its schools, its intellectual and patriotic leaders, a central cultural nucleus. From this nucleus the colony extends out by imperceptible gradations to a fringe where national characteristics are all but lost. Our cities are filled with these half- breeds who retain their foreign names but have lost the foreign savor. This does not mean that they have actually been changed into New Englanders or MiddleWesterners. It does not mean that they have been really Americanized. It means that, letting slip from them whatever native culture they had, they have substituted for it only the most rudimentary American -- the American culture of the cheap newspaper, the 'movies,' the popular song, the ubiquitous automobile. The unthinking who survey this class call them assimilated, Americanized. The great American public school has done its work. With these people our institutions are safe. We may thrill with dread at the aggressive hyphenate, but this tame flabbiness is accepted as Americanization. The same moulders of opinion whose ideal is to melt the different races into Anglo-Saxon gold hail this poor product as the satisfying result of their alchemy.



No matter the differences an immigrant entails, the qualities that separates them should not be over shadowed or broken down into basic formality of others. With people from so many different places and different beliefs, its hard to maintain a cultural identity in a country where national colonies has been established. These colonies has greatly impacted influence over immigrants, by preserving and and reiterating their language, schools, leaders and religion as superior to other beliefs.  While this does not necessarily mean that an immigrant fully adapts or dismisses their own culture for to be considered apart of Europe, but  it becomes easier to lose self identity in acceptance to the  "American culture". As much as this seems to devastate the people, it has become adopted and accepted as the Anglo-Saxon affect and is the result of Americanization.

Despite Negativity...

Half of Americans say there is too much government regulation of business and industry, by one percentage point the highest in Gallup's history of asking this question, dating to 1993. Americans were least likely to say the government regulated business too much in February 2002, just months after 9/11 and at a time when President Bush and Congress were involved in efforts to combat terrorism and had high approval ratings. The "too much regulation" attitude held in the 30% range for most of the rest of the last decade, but jumped after President Obama took office in 2009.
Republicans have consistently been more likely than Democrats to say there is too much government regulation of business, but in recent years, the gap between Republican and Democratic views on this issue has widened substantially
Some of the negative views of government are related to politics. The fact that Democrats were more concerned about government power when Bush was president and Republicans are more concerned about it with Obama as president shows that some people will be negative about the government simply because of political partisanship. Additionally, there are clear philosophical and ideological differences in views of the government that create the dynamic tension that exists in any democratic system, with conservatives generally favoring less government and liberals favoring more government.

From as far back as the 90's, the government has been potentially viewed as having to much say over Americans. Uprisings in businesses and markets since this time has greatly impacted how congress implements "power" state to state. Though this may not  have been a great deal before President Bush took office but certainly after 9/11 people began to question the role and sufficiency of congress. Political parties also started to take a stand point against the government, in fact, for some time Republicans has widely viewed the government as having too much power while Democrats viewed this is at a much slower pace. Either way both political parties seemed to have an effect over the American people being that they are the voices  of the people. However it seems as if the debate over government regulation varies based upon the Presidential elect in office, which may also help one to understand that policies and socialism comes from how well each party interacts.