When Jefferson drew up his land Ordinance of 1784, he made some very interesting plans. He suggested creating ten new states out of the empty land, making them completely equal with the existing states, and giving the land freely to the settlers, as long as they did not keep slaves in the region. This ordinance, however was turned down. The textbook calls it "farsighted." If it was, then why was it not chosen? I think one of the main reasons was the issue of the new states being equal to the old ones. It seems that the old states, having fought for their land and built their own nation and now living freely, were a little resentful of the idea that ten new states could just spring up out of nowhere and be allowed everything they had worked for. Furthermore, those same states would not just be upstarts, they would be competitors. They would trade and produce things the old colonies were trying to sell, they would need things the old colonies needed. These new colonies could work the old ones right out of the New World! I think the final reason the Land Ordinance of 1784 was never passed was its stance on slavery. True, the founding fathers hoped slavery would die out, and perhaps they hoped to help it on its way, but many of the colonies had no such interest. They did not enjoy the prospect of losing such an amount of cheap labor. Although it may be called "farsighted" in the sense that it hoped for peace, expansion, and freedom for all, the Land Ordinance of 1784 seems to me better fitted to words such as "idealistic", perhaps even "unrealistic". I understand it was well-intended, but I think it could have been more practical.
In the midwifes tale, I thought the part about the lady having a baby out of wedlock was interesting, and the scandal with "Esquire Davis", its hard to imagine how much different it would've been back then, when having a kid out of marriage was so frowned upon, that people would probably barely want to be by you, yet these days, its almost like people are encouraged to have kids before marriage, and even when you are a very young age, there are even TV shows about it. Its also sad that back then, that if you were a child born out of wedlock, you're labeled a bastard immediately when its not really the kids fault. I'm not sure its very Godly of people to shun someone for being born out of wedlock, or having a child out of wedlock, but its not something people should strive for.
I noticed that this week’s Government chapter reflected passively on gerrymandering, a personal favorite topic of mine. However, I noticed some oddities in how they referenced it, at least in this chapter. In the only other chapter in which it is mentioned, they don’t really follow through on it, giving a vague description of what it is and its origins. It never really brings out how huge of a problem gerrymandering is. Gerrymandering is the redrawing of district boundaries to favor a particular group of people, and while the book states in one instance that gerrymandering was, at some point, outlawed, the reality couldn’t be farther from the truth. Gerrymandering is such a modern issue to the point that it had a large impact on the last presidential election, and some people are even blaming the recent government shutdown on it. Now, how gerrymandering works is that by reshaping districts to hold different people with different votes, you can get a larger amount of districts to go one way, even though the actual voting may say otherwise. An example of this is North Carolina during the last election. When simulations of random district combinations were averaged, the most common result was to have 7 Democratic delegates, and 6 Republican delegates. However, the actual delegate split in the election was 4 Democratic delegates and nine Republican delegates. This split occurred in less than one percent of the simulations, which heavily suggests that this outcome was gerrymandered. This means that because of a few crooked politicians, hundreds of thousands of people’s votes no longer counted. This is a glaring issue in our current system, and I’m a little disappointed that the book didn’t go a little bit more in-depth on the topic.
I really enjoyed this week's history reading, because it covered a time period I hadn't heard much about. I guess I always assumed that after the Revolutionary War, Washington immediately became president, and the American government was established. In reality, after the Revolutionary War, the American government started falling apart. First, the central government was had very little power, other than what the states allowed it to have. Such a small central government was very weak, since it could not enforce its policies, such as the power to tax. Since the government could not collect money from its citizens, it went into debt and could barely pay its bills or fund its programs. The only way for the central government to collect money was by begging the states for it, and the states were not very generous when it came to this. Second, this weak central government also encouraged disunity between the states, since it allowed them to operate independently and completely control the federal government. The states were used to acting as their own, but in order to become a strong nation, they had to work together. The main thing that impeded unity between the states was selfishness, because each of the states were mainly concerned for their own welfare, not that of the nation as a whole. It would take many years of attempted reforms for America to establish an efficient and liberty-protecting government.
Jimena Mejia while i was reading " A Midwife's tale" caught my attention, when it speaks of the moral book. when it says that Summers found a child in the door, well i think it is really cruel, i know there may be reasons like can not raise him, money problems or parenting, but still seems very cruel to leave him, so i think it is very good that Summers take care of him, although people do not understand. i like when says "why would any man support a child not his own?" ans Summers answer that charity is a Christian value and Chasity. which bring me to the reason for the book, i think it is great that make a moral book, because even that today also there are some, it is not very common for people to read them, at least for young people, and i think many people would need a few tips moral.
"The Constitution and Bill of Rights made the people's liberties secure." It is weird for me to realize that the Bill of Rights, which were 10 amendments that were proposed by James Madison and ratified in a couple of years, were purely there to make sure that the people rights were not encroached. The rights that are included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were already in place in the people's minds, by 1789, (when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights). This is another example of the founding fathers' understanding of human nature. For instance, 100 years later, if there was no laws and rights of the people on paper, someone could "legally" make a new state without the consent of the Congress. If the founding fathers had assumed that people in the future would keep the same mindset that they had, our life's today would be incredibly different.
In the government chapter this week, it talked about the Constitution, its basic principles, how it was ratified, and how amendments are made. Something that really caught my attention was the list of submitted, but never formally proposed, amendments. One especially made me think, the one that was submitted in 1878. It suggested that an executive council of three shall replace the office of president. I wonder how that would work? It could be a good way to further limit the power of the president, because it would require at least two of the council to agree on a law before signing or vetoing it. However, it might be inefficient because it would require more consent before a law could move on and be accepted or rejected. There were also some amendments that made me laugh, like that the U.S. will be called the United Sates of the Earth. Another was that all citizens have the unalienable right to an environment free of pollution. (If you want an unpolluted earth, do something about it yourself - it's not the government's job!) There was one I did not quite understand. "Life is declared to begin at conception, and thus the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments {Rights of the Accused and citizenship for everyone}. Why do unborn babies need rights if they are accused? They can't do anything wrong. Also, why do they need citizenship? Does anyone know what the reason was behind that?
If you read all the way through the Fifth Amendment, it says that "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." So what I think they were trying to do here was to make abortion constitutionally illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment has a similar clause about "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." So if life began at conception, then the unborn could not be legally deprived of it.
For me, as I was reading the Constitution, the ammendments, and the commentaries next to them, I was really amazed at seeing the forsight and wisdom that the founding fathers had and the God-honoring values that they carefully placed in it when many of them actually did not agknowlege God as their Savior. In the Bill of Rights, they made sure that religion could be practiced freely. Early on when these same representatives met together to make the Declaration of Independence, they had written that every man is "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." However, even after the framers gave God the credit for their rights, many did not realize that they needed to honor and obey this Creator. Although the founding fathers had been taught well in both their education and Christianity, many still remained blind to their need for Christ, relying on their general "goodness" to save them. This is an excellent reminder to us today to not take our Christian backgrounds and think that they will buy us a ticket to heaven. Many of our founding fathers counted their good deeds as their righteousness maybe because they had been taught by people during the Great Reformation and maybe because they just did not wish to have to rely on someone more powerful than they; for they had just beaten one of the most formidable powers on earth and they were well respected leaders. Although the Constitution was very well written and has proved to be vital to our country, many of the founding fathers contridicted themselves by agknowleging that there is a Creator and refusing to obey Him.
“What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…” James Madison I found this an interesting quote on how government is necessary. The only way for there to be no government and everything run smoothly is if we are perfect, but since we are sinful, government is required. If there are angels are governing over man than no government is necessary. Why must we be perfect to have no government? In Government there is a lot of power that is required to govern the people. Man is sinful and will abuse that power that the people entrusted to that person if given enough time to gain the trust of the people. Although we may become discouraged because of the leader that are in office there is a reason that God has placed them there. We are to trust God for the leaders he appoints over our country.
In American history, the whole topic of ratifying the Constitution was very interesting. It was funny how nearsighted some of the states were. They still wanted to stick with the articles of Confederation , even though they were leading to the country’s demise. If they had not ratified the Constitution what would America look like today? Fortunately, though they did ratify, but even then they were somewhat hesitant. Another funny point was that they called Rhode Island “Rogue Island” because it was the last one to ratify the Constitution.
In “The Midwife’s Tale”, I noticed how much more advanced they were in medicine than I originally thought. I did not think that they performed dissections back then, especially with those kinds of observations. Apparently, Martha had the chance to attend 4 dissections in her life, which probably seemed like a lot for a midwife. Back then, it was considered a great act to give your body up for dissection and to help advance the art of medicine. Doctors never had a shortage of people to dissect, particularly with the high death rate. It probably made it easier on the dead’s family since they no longer had to worry about wrapping the person for burial, that is if it was buried after dissection. It might have been burned. Were parents and family horrified at the thought of their loved one being cut open? Or were they just as enthusiastic about it? It sounds like a very unknown subject.
In this week’s Government reading I found the discussion on the Amendment process to be quite interesting. Up to this point I was unaware that there were two different ways the U.S. Constitution could be amended under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The first way for the Constitution to be amended is first for the amendment to be proposed by two thirds of both houses must vote in favor of it and then for it to be approved by three fourths of the legislatures of the states'. The second way to amend the Constitution is by a two thirds vote in favor of the amendment by the states, which takes place at a national convention specifically called together to discuss the legislation. If the two thirds vote is reached, then the amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the “special state ratification conventions”. In most cases there is a seven year time limit set for the legislation to be ratified no matter which of the two process are used. However, aside from the Bill of Rights, there have been seventeen new amendments to the Constitution which is an astonishingly small number considering that over 10,000 amendments have been offered. And so far the second process has not been used thus far. However, there is someone right now who is proposing to amend the constitution: Mark Levin.
Mark Levin is a syndicated radio talk show host, bestselling author, constitutional lawyer, and Founder and president of Landmark Legal Foundation. In his newest book, The Liberty Amendments, Restoring The American Republic, Mark Levin are trying to amend the constitution using the second way. As he states on the back cover of the book, “I undertook this project because not because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite---that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.” His amendments include “An amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress, An Amendment to Restore the Senate, An amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override, An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise, An Amendment to Protect Private Property, An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution, An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Check Congress, An Amendment to Protect the Vote.” It is my opinion that the federal government has become too powerful, too centralized, and too large, and is ever seeking to take away more of our liberties. These amendments seek to restore liberty to the individual. As Ben Franklin famously said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both.”
In the American government reading for this week, the alien and sedition acts were quite amazing for several reasons. First off it was a direct affront to the Constitution. I mean, how more unconstitutional can you get,. throwing people in jail and fining them if they spoke out against the president! It's amazing that this even passed Congress and then that the president didn't veto it was even more incredible. And this was only a matter of years after they had written the Constitution and we think Obama care is bad. It's funny though that only 10 people were convicted so it didn't seem like they used the law widely. And then they repealed it. After Jefferson and Adams wrote proclamations declaring unconstitutional. Why didn';t they realize this in the first place. I mean it's pretty obvious. I think this is probably the most unconstitutional law that was never passed in American history. But fortunately it seems that lawmakers have learned a lesson, but with Obama in power. No one can tell.
When Jefferson drew up his land Ordinance of 1784, he made some very interesting plans. He suggested creating ten new states out of the empty land, making them completely equal with the existing states, and giving the land freely to the settlers, as long as they did not keep slaves in the region. This ordinance, however was turned down. The textbook calls it "farsighted." If it was, then why was it not chosen?
ReplyDeleteI think one of the main reasons was the issue of the new states being equal to the old ones. It seems that the old states, having fought for their land and built their own nation and now living freely, were a little resentful of the idea that ten new states could just spring up out of nowhere and be allowed everything they had worked for. Furthermore, those same states would not just be upstarts, they would be competitors. They would trade and produce things the old colonies were trying to sell, they would need things the old colonies needed. These new colonies could work the old ones right out of the New World!
I think the final reason the Land Ordinance of 1784 was never passed was its stance on slavery. True, the founding fathers hoped slavery would die out, and perhaps they hoped to help it on its way, but many of the colonies had no such interest. They did not enjoy the prospect of losing such an amount of cheap labor.
Although it may be called "farsighted" in the sense that it hoped for peace, expansion, and freedom for all, the Land Ordinance of 1784 seems to me better fitted to words such as "idealistic", perhaps even "unrealistic". I understand it was well-intended, but I think it could have been more practical.
In the midwifes tale, I thought the part about the lady having a baby out of wedlock was interesting, and the scandal with "Esquire Davis", its hard to imagine how much different it would've been back then, when having a kid out of marriage was so frowned upon, that people would probably barely want to be by you, yet these days, its almost like people are encouraged to have kids before marriage, and even when you are a very young age, there are even TV shows about it. Its also sad that back then, that if you were a child born out of wedlock, you're labeled a bastard immediately when its not really the kids fault. I'm not sure its very Godly of people to shun someone for being born out of wedlock, or having a child out of wedlock, but its not something people should strive for.
ReplyDeleteI noticed that this week’s Government chapter reflected passively on gerrymandering, a personal favorite topic of mine. However, I noticed some oddities in how they referenced it, at least in this chapter. In the only other chapter in which it is mentioned, they don’t really follow through on it, giving a vague description of what it is and its origins. It never really brings out how huge of a problem gerrymandering is.
ReplyDeleteGerrymandering is the redrawing of district boundaries to favor a particular group of people, and while the book states in one instance that gerrymandering was, at some point, outlawed, the reality couldn’t be farther from the truth. Gerrymandering is such a modern issue to the point that it had a large impact on the last presidential election, and some people are even blaming the recent government shutdown on it.
Now, how gerrymandering works is that by reshaping districts to hold different people with different votes, you can get a larger amount of districts to go one way, even though the actual voting may say otherwise. An example of this is North Carolina during the last election. When simulations of random district combinations were averaged, the most common result was to have 7 Democratic delegates, and 6 Republican delegates. However, the actual delegate split in the election was 4 Democratic delegates and nine Republican delegates. This split occurred in less than one percent of the simulations, which heavily suggests that this outcome was gerrymandered.
This means that because of a few crooked politicians, hundreds of thousands of people’s votes no longer counted. This is a glaring issue in our current system, and I’m a little disappointed that the book didn’t go a little bit more in-depth on the topic.
I really enjoyed this week's history reading, because it covered a time period I hadn't heard much about. I guess I always assumed that after the Revolutionary War, Washington immediately became president, and the American government was established. In reality, after the Revolutionary War, the American government started falling apart.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the central government was had very little power, other than what the states allowed it to have. Such a small central government was very weak, since it could not enforce its policies, such as the power to tax. Since the government could not collect money from its citizens, it went into debt and could barely pay its bills or fund its programs. The only way for the central government to collect money was by begging the states for it, and the states were not very generous when it came to this.
Second, this weak central government also encouraged disunity between the states, since it allowed them to operate independently and completely control the federal government. The states were used to acting as their own, but in order to become a strong nation, they had to work together. The main thing that impeded unity between the states was selfishness, because each of the states were mainly concerned for their own welfare, not that of the nation as a whole. It would take many years of attempted reforms for America to establish an efficient and liberty-protecting government.
Jimena Mejia
ReplyDeletewhile i was reading " A Midwife's tale" caught my attention, when it speaks of the moral book. when it says that Summers found a child in the door, well i think it is really cruel, i know there may be reasons like can not raise him, money problems or parenting, but still seems very cruel to leave him, so i think it is very good that Summers take care of him, although people do not understand. i like when says "why would any man support a child not his own?" ans Summers answer that charity is a Christian value and Chasity. which bring me to the reason for the book, i think it is great that make a moral book, because even that today also there are some, it is not very common for people to read them, at least for young people, and i think many people would need a few tips moral.
"The Constitution and Bill of Rights made the people's liberties secure." It is weird for me to realize that the Bill of Rights, which were 10 amendments that were proposed by James Madison and ratified in a couple of years, were purely there to make sure that the people rights were not encroached. The rights that are included in the Constitution and Bill of Rights were already in place in the people's minds, by 1789, (when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights). This is another example of the founding fathers' understanding of human nature. For instance, 100 years later, if there was no laws and rights of the people on paper, someone could "legally" make a new state without the consent of the Congress. If the founding fathers had assumed that people in the future would keep the same mindset that they had, our life's today would be incredibly different.
ReplyDeleteIn the government chapter this week, it talked about the Constitution, its basic principles, how it was ratified, and how amendments are made. Something that really caught my attention was the list of submitted, but never formally proposed, amendments. One especially made me think, the one that was submitted in 1878. It suggested that an executive council of three shall replace the office of president. I wonder how that would work? It could be a good way to further limit the power of the president, because it would require at least two of the council to agree on a law before signing or vetoing it. However, it might be inefficient because it would require more consent before a law could move on and be accepted or rejected.
ReplyDeleteThere were also some amendments that made me laugh, like that the U.S. will be called the United Sates of the Earth. Another was that all citizens have the unalienable right to an environment free of pollution. (If you want an unpolluted earth, do something about it yourself - it's not the government's job!)
There was one I did not quite understand. "Life is declared to begin at conception, and thus the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments {Rights of the Accused and citizenship for everyone}. Why do unborn babies need rights if they are accused? They can't do anything wrong. Also, why do they need citizenship? Does anyone know what the reason was behind that?
If you read all the way through the Fifth Amendment, it says that "No person shall... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law..." So what I think they were trying to do here was to make abortion constitutionally illegal. The Fourteenth Amendment has a similar clause about "Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the law." So if life began at conception, then the unborn could not be legally deprived of it.
DeleteFor me, as I was reading the Constitution, the ammendments, and the commentaries next to them, I was really amazed at seeing the forsight and wisdom that the founding fathers had and the God-honoring values that they carefully placed in it when many of them actually did not agknowlege God as their Savior. In the Bill of Rights, they made sure that religion could be practiced freely. Early on when these same representatives met together to make the Declaration of Independence, they had written that every man is "Endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." However, even after the framers gave God the credit for their rights, many did not realize that they needed to honor and obey this Creator. Although the founding fathers had been taught well in both their education and Christianity, many still remained blind to their need for Christ, relying on their general "goodness" to save them. This is an excellent reminder to us today to not take our Christian backgrounds and think that they will buy us a ticket to heaven. Many of our founding fathers counted their good deeds as their righteousness maybe because they had been taught by people during the Great Reformation and maybe because they just did not wish to have to rely on someone more powerful than they; for they had just beaten one of the most formidable powers on earth and they were well respected leaders. Although the Constitution was very well written and has proved to be vital to our country, many of the founding fathers contridicted themselves by agknowleging that there is a Creator and refusing to obey Him.
ReplyDelete“What is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature. If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary…” James Madison
ReplyDeleteI found this an interesting quote on how government is necessary. The only way for there to be no government and everything run smoothly is if we are perfect, but since we are sinful, government is required. If there are angels are governing over man than no government is necessary. Why must we be perfect to have no government? In Government there is a lot of power that is required to govern the people. Man is sinful and will abuse that power that the people entrusted to that person if given enough time to gain the trust of the people. Although we may become discouraged because of the leader that are in office there is a reason that God has placed them there. We are to trust God for the leaders he appoints over our country.
In American history, the whole topic of ratifying the Constitution was very interesting. It was funny how nearsighted some of the states were. They still wanted to stick with the articles of Confederation , even though they were leading to the country’s demise. If they had not ratified the Constitution what would America look like today? Fortunately, though they did ratify, but even then they were somewhat hesitant. Another funny point was that they called Rhode Island “Rogue Island” because it was the last one to ratify the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteIn “The Midwife’s Tale”, I noticed how much more advanced they were in medicine than I originally thought. I did not think that they performed dissections back then, especially with those kinds of observations. Apparently, Martha had the chance to attend 4 dissections in her life, which probably seemed like a lot for a midwife. Back then, it was considered a great act to give your body up for dissection and to help advance the art of medicine. Doctors never had a shortage of people to dissect, particularly with the high death rate. It probably made it easier on the dead’s family since they no longer had to worry about wrapping the person for burial, that is if it was buried after dissection. It might have been burned. Were parents and family horrified at the thought of their loved one being cut open? Or were they just as enthusiastic about it? It sounds like a very unknown subject.
ReplyDeleteIn this week’s Government reading I found the discussion on the Amendment process to be quite interesting. Up to this point I was unaware that there were two different ways the U.S. Constitution could be amended under Article V of the U.S. Constitution. The first way for the Constitution to be amended is first for the amendment to be proposed by two thirds of both houses must vote in favor of it and then for it to be approved by three fourths of the legislatures of the states'. The second way to amend the Constitution is by a two thirds vote in favor of the amendment by the states, which takes place at a national convention specifically called together to discuss the legislation. If the two thirds vote is reached, then the amendment must be ratified by three fourths of the “special state ratification conventions”. In most cases there is a seven year time limit set for the legislation to be ratified no matter which of the two process are used. However, aside from the Bill of Rights, there have been seventeen new amendments to the Constitution which is an astonishingly small number considering that over 10,000 amendments have been offered. And so far the second process has not been used thus far. However, there is someone right now who is proposing to amend the constitution: Mark Levin.
ReplyDeleteMark Levin is a syndicated radio talk show host, bestselling author, constitutional lawyer, and Founder and president of Landmark Legal Foundation. In his newest book, The Liberty Amendments, Restoring The American Republic, Mark Levin are trying to amend the constitution using the second way. As he states on the back cover of the book, “I undertook this project because not because I believe the Constitution, as originally structured, is outdated and outmoded, thereby requiring modernization through amendments, but because of the opposite---that is, the necessity and urgency of restoring constitutional republicanism and preserving the civil society from the growing authoritarianism of a federal Leviathan.” His amendments include “An amendment to Establish Term Limits for Members of Congress, An Amendment to Restore the Senate, An amendment to Establish Term Limits for Supreme Court Justices and Super-Majority Legislative Override, An Amendment to Promote Free Enterprise, An Amendment to Protect Private Property, An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Directly Amend the Constitution, An Amendment to Grant the States Authority to Check Congress, An Amendment to Protect the Vote.” It is my opinion that the federal government has become too powerful, too centralized, and too large, and is ever seeking to take away more of our liberties. These amendments seek to restore liberty to the individual. As Ben Franklin famously said, “Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and loose both.”
In the American government reading for this week, the alien and sedition acts were quite amazing for several reasons. First off it was a direct affront to the Constitution. I mean, how more unconstitutional can you get,. throwing people in jail and fining them if they spoke out against the president! It's amazing that this even passed Congress and then that the president didn't veto it was even more incredible. And this was only a matter of years after they had written the Constitution and we think Obama care is bad. It's funny though that only 10 people were convicted so it didn't seem like they used the law widely. And then they repealed it. After Jefferson and Adams wrote proclamations declaring unconstitutional. Why didn';t they realize this in the first place. I mean it's pretty obvious. I think this is probably the most unconstitutional law that was never passed in American history. But fortunately it seems that lawmakers have learned a lesson, but with Obama in power. No one can tell.
ReplyDelete