Barack Obama Father's Day Speech

"The third thing we need to do as fathers is pass along the value of empathy to our children. Not sympathy, but empathy – the ability to stand in somebody else’s shoes; to look at the world through their eyes. Sometimes it’s so easy to get caught up in “us,” in “me,” that we forget about our obligations to other people, to one another. There’s a culture in our society that says remembering to look out for other people is somehow being soft. We hear that even our politics in Washington, that it’s all about you, look out for your self-interest, don’t look out for others."
-Barack Obama Father's Day Speech 2008 

          What President Obama is emphasizing in this passage is the idea that the role of the individual human would not be significant if no one else was around, so we should take into consideration, those who we surround ourselves with. By taking ourselves out of the spotlight and considering others we are giving recognition and we are giving a voice and we are meeting needs of others. He says to teach empathy rather than sympathy because to sympathize with someone only shows that you see the struggle or you see the pain, and you feel sorry for them, but to empathize with someone designates that you feel for the other person, you can take yourself away from your "higher standing" or "lack of struggle" and put yourself in their shoes to show that you might not be able to understand their problems but you respect it. 

          His reference to Washington and politics is very legit as it seems most political leaders are out to ensure that their well being is met as well as their needs; neglecting the fact that the remainder of the nation is still in dire need of plenty of things. When laws are made or taxes go up, it is always to benefit the leaders rather than the workers. If Political leaders practiced empathy rather than sympathy, all social classes would be flourishing and doing better because to pity the lower classes does nothing for them.  

Roosevelt and the Depression

"...even Jefferson realized that the exercise of the property rights might so interfere with the rights of the individual that the government, without whose assistance the property rights could not exist, must intervene, not to destroy individualism but to protect it.”

Roosevelt; The CommonWealth Club Address

What this passage says to me is that Roosevelt supports the concept of government involvement in the life of the individual. If government did not have impact on society people would be running rampant and because of the presence of government officials, citizens have the ability to roam about as they please without having to worry. I chose this passage because as much as I question the role of government in the personal lives of citizens, I understand this concept because it is a fact whether we like it or not that government impact has some positive effects, like limiting outsiders and protecting the individual. 


Great Depression: 

Industry and Labor

The National Recovery Administration (NRA), established in 1933 with the National Industrial Recovery Act (NIRA), attempted to end cut-throat competition by setting codes of fair competitive practice to generate more jobs and thus more buying. Although the NRA was welcomed initially, business complained bitterly of over-regulation as recovery began to take hold. The NRA was declared unconstitutional in 1935. By this time other policies were fostering recovery, and the government soon took the position that administered prices in certain lines of business were a severe drain on the national economy and a barrier to recovery.
It was also during the New Deal that organized labor made greater gains than at any previous time in American history. NIRA had guaranteed to labor the right of collective bargaining (bargaining as a unit representing individual workers with industry). Then in 1935 Congress passed the National Labor Relations Act, which defined unfair labor practices, gave workers the right to bargain through unions of their own choice and prohibited employers from interfering with union activities. It also created the National Labor Relations Board to supervise collective bargaining, administer elections and ensure workers the right to choose the organization that should represent them in dealing with employers.
The great progress made in labor organization brought working people a growing sense of common interests, and labor's power increased not only in industry but also in politics. This power was exercised largely within the framework of the two major parties, however, and the Democratic Party generally received more union support than the Republicans.

Farmer and sons, dust storm, Cimarron County, Oklahoma, 1936. Photographer: Arthur Rothstein.
The drought that helped cripple agriculture in the Great Depression was the worst in the climatological history of the country. By 1934 it had dessicated the Great Plains, from North Dakota to Texas, from the Mississippi River Valley to the Rockies. Vast dust storms swept the region.
Source

          This passage "Industry and Labor" highlights the approaching of a bell curve for the depression. Labor unions being formed for workers and the NRA was found being unconstitutional. This gave workers a voice and more power in their political stances as the Democratic part had more support in this than the Republican. I chose this passage because it is similar to today's day in age, where the working class is outspoken and are mostly Democratic; and are all supported by some form of union. The image I chose looks as though it completely sums up the Depression. Everything just looks scarce and dry, and it reminds me of a book I read in 6th grade called Out of the Dust by Karen Hesse.  

Gettysburg Address

"But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth." - Abraham Lincoln November 1863

What Lincoln is trying to promote is the idea that we are responsible for the outcome of the nation. Our forefathers have built the nation up, so what we do each day, politically and socially influences what happens in the long run. In other words, what we allow is what will continue. Being that the civil war is taking place at this time, Lincoln is zooming into the fact that the nation's citizens are resorting to war to justify the dehumanizing of slaves. If we cannot solve problems without lashing out, how can we solve problems? It seems we are scarring and bruising the nation rather than even justifying it. I chose this passage because it's true, people from the past have set us on the right path and the high road to make our nation a great success, however we are in a sense defying their hard work, it's time for us to rise up and be responsible. 

Lincoln Dred Scott

"Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession."

This passage highlights the role of judgement in cases; and the notion that this sort of decision making should inhibit the human instincts for common sense. Being that judicial leaders are carefully selected, it is a shame the legal perspective of this case is empowered and altered to overpower the humanitarian side of it. This makes it unbearable to imagine what future cases might look like with this kind of judicial system. This passage relates to our course because the 3 branches are divided i a way to maintain power, however it seems as though the balance of power was lacking around this case. However, at a time where you would think progress has been made, there is still the slight lack of common sense and critical and judicial thinking in the law system; for example, the Trayvon Martin case. Though the judicial system has advanced a little bit, it still has some glitches and flaws.

Civil Disobedience and African American Odyssey

"After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?- in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." -Henry David Thoreau 

          Henry David Thoreau's stand point in his essay is to question why citizens dehumanize themselves to follow the laws made by the government; and I believe he makes that very clear in this passage. He asks why do we avoid our conscience just because the government has  made its own decision about carrying out with a plan that only benefits them, Thoreau is writing from a time when the United States was planing on expanding into Mexico, and needed the money of the citizens to pay for this expansion which possibly in the eyes of many Americans was seen as wrong, however they neglected their conscience and their own mindset to fulfill that of the governments, causing Thoreau to ask when the government will finally stop getting not only into the pockets of its people but their minds as well. Instead of expressing their beliefs in regards to the Mexican expansion, these people just  gave graciously to the government, avoiding the fact that some sort of dehumanizing would be taking place on both American soil and Mexican soil. 

African American Odyssey 

PART 1: West Africa during Slave Trade

         

          West Africa during the slave trade was wiped out and lacked population, whereas population and agriculture were reportedly flourishing in other places. Slave owners and traders were working systematically as Thoreau expresses the government to be doing, helping themselves flourish at the expense of someone else. People were dehumanize for a shiny coin or for labor, completely neglecting the fact that what has become property is a living, breathing individual. Citizens are similar to slaves in a sense that they "belong" to the government, they must obey and pay taxes and support the government or they will be punished, just like a slave. 

PART 2: The merchandise of slaves...and souls of men

         With the idea that slave trade was outlawed in 1808, but still continued illegally, and no government action took place, it paints the obvious picture that the government, much like any normal human, with a desire, will fulfill that desire whether it is right or wrong. When slave trade was outlawed, slaves were still coming in. Thoreau's position on government power can be supported through this, at the end of the day so long as the government is happy will always be the result, the sun cannot go down if the government is dissatisfied, even if it is at the cost of human life and humanity. 

Anti-Federalist

"It is admitted that to prohibit the general government, from keeping up standing armies, while yet they were authorised to raise them in case of exigency, would be an insufficient guard against the danger. A discretion of such latitude would give room to elude the force of the provision.
It is also admitted that an absolute prohibition against raising troops, except in cases of actual war, would be improper; because it will be requisite to raise and support a small number of troops to garrison the important frontier posts, and to guard arsenals; and it may happen, that the danger of an attack from a foreign power may be so imminent, as to render it highly proper we should raise an army, in order to be prepared to resist them. But to raise and keep up forces for such purposes and on such occasions, is not included in the idea, of keeping up standing armies in times of peace. "
Anti Federalist #10 Brutus

         This passage implies that it is unnecessary for governments to obtain and have standing armies when it is not needed, such as in moments of peace when there are no known tensions or issues needed defense. I chose this passage because it opposes Madison's passage about maintaining active troops although they can be a little dangerous, Madison imposes that attacks can be sudden and tensions can arise at any moment so an active military are necessary. Brutus thinks of the negative impact and the abilities of  having an active army at a time of peace.

         Horizontal federalism ranges from state to state and is based off of these interstitial relationship however vertical federalism is the older version where the government is put on a pedestal and follows constitutional ways, and only involves the government.

~Cindy Dickson

Federalists Pt. 2 C. Dickson

"If we are wise enough to preserve the Union we may for ages enjoy an advantage similar to that of an insulated situation. Europe is at a great distance from us. Her colonies in our vicinity will be likely to continue too much disproportioned in strength to be able to give us any dangerous annoyance. Extensive military establishments cannot, in this position, be necessary to our security. But if we should be disunited, and the integral parts should either remain separated, or, which is most probable, should be thrown together into two or three confederacies, we should be, in a short course of time, in the predicament of the continental powers of Europe --our liberties would be a prey to the means of defending ourselves against the ambition and jealousy of each other."
-Hamilton Federalist #8 Paragraph 12

        This specific passage draws out the difference between Europe and the United States, and how we must apply some of the European ways to certain situations, but to avoid them lingering too much. In this Hamilton tells us that it is okay to have minimal military security, however, total and large amount of military power is unnecessary, maybe that's what works in Europe, but it will not work here. When military action is instilled, he notes that everyday citizen would perceive himself as a victim, having to succumb to a higher authority, thus making society prone to jealousy. Military power between states is known to cause some sort of friction when powers of authority are placed face to face at state borders.

"The powers falling within the FIRST class are those of declaring war and granting letters of marque; of providing armies and fleets; of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money.

Security against foreign danger is one of the primitive objects of civil society. It is an avowed and essential object of the American Union. The powers requisite for attaining it must be effectually confided to the federal councils.

Is the power of declaring war necessary? No man will answer this question in the negative. It would be superfluous, therefore, to enter into a proof of the affirmative. The existing Confederation establishes this power in the most ample form.

Is the power of raising armies and equipping fleets necessary? This is involved in the foregoing power. It is involved in the power of self-defense." -Madison Federalist #41 

          This passage questions how much power and authority we give the Government and how much control they have over our daily lives. Madison questions whether that much power is needed, when governing so many people. To allow the Government to decide on invasions and wars and finances seems to be okay with Madison. He notes that armies and an active military can at times be dangerous, but in times of need, that same army protects the people. If the Government were not given its powers, the citizens would drive themselves into turmoil as they would lack structure. When opening this piece, Madison's approach was a little ambiguous, much like the passage I chose; it seems he would argue against Government power, but then he argues for it.