Separation of POWER; Myth or Reality.

This is probably the most well-known example of the second major principle guiding the Constitution, the system of checks and balances. Similar to the separation of powers, this principle stipulates that the different branches of government have to be in agreement on major decisions and that each branch has the power to limit the power of the other branch. The idea of separation of powers would be pretty much meaningless if it did not include this as well. These two principles were designed above all else to prevent tyranny, even at the expense of effective government, or what Hamilton would call "energetic government." 

This is controversial, because although preventing some (not all) abuses of government authority, it makes it difficult to use the government for more constructive purposes, leading to what is called "gridlock." This is a common topic in the present because of the noted Republican opposition to the Obama administration. In this case, Republicans control the House of Representatives while the Senate is nominally a Democratic majority, so even controlling one part of the Congress is enough to effectively stall any programs or policies favored by the current administration. However, this is complicated because in the Senate at the present the rules have effectively changed to now require a 2/3 majority to pass legislation through instead of a "simple" majority (n > 50%). This is as a result of what is called the "filibuster" and its notable because it is NOT in the Constitution.



In my opinion i do not believe that the principle of separation of power its real.When the different branches of government have to be in agreement on major decisions  there is always a problem.The idea of separation of power would never be equally implemented.
Most of the members of the different branches of government only seeks for their own welfare rather than for the welfare of society as a whole.It is meaningless that most of the former presidents include in their speeches things such as"my government will implement an equal policy  or social politic among its branches"... what? I believe this is a very controversial and common issue all over the world. The idea of separation of power do not only consists in words but facts.
 On the other hand ,  as the fragment of the reading says the this principle must be combine with the major principle of checks and balances .However,ow  to prevent tyranny if the basic principle of separation of power its not real or its not combined ? when it comes to big decisions regarding the welfare of the country there is always one branch that disagrees, why ? ..supposedly all branches have its own roles and one mission the well being of the nation,however, one branch has the power to limit the power of the other branch. For me these principles are so hard to understand specially when I have never seen it implemented. So are these principles myth or reality.



I choose this fragment of the reading because,when  I  think in the principle or idea of the separation of powers, I end up questioning my self if this principle only its part of the constitution or in fact its real..In my point of view its so hard to understand why all the government's branches never agree when big decisions comes up in the table , but i guess that is Power.

The voice of Power!

But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconvenience is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.(James Madison)

If society demands quality among it's members,why society does not demand equality over its government institutions?, it's possible that such equality(society) becomes reality only by forcing government to give an equal power of self defense to it's institutions and departments.I believe this could be a great solution to exercise equality,however it will be so difficult to achieve.It is not a lie and we all know that some departments are more benefit than others. Assuming that all institutions receive the same amount of supplies ,could this change the way that society see these institutions in terms of the exercise of power?.

In my opinion this is an impossible mission,because in order to make it possible government needs to give up some power.In others words by giving those institutions an equal power of self defense government loses control over them.Moreover,i believe that power its on the hands of society meaning that if society decides to demand such equality then society would be exercising it's voice.

This fragment of the reading catches my attention because its well known that some government institutions receive more benefits than other ,but  what if by giving an equal power of self defense ,we(society) change our perceptions among those institutions which job is to help. Is government ready to make an attempt to teach  Equality?.Government is the head of the country but society its voice.....

The "Dreaming Land"(United States of America)

We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born,and if distinctions are to be made between us, they should rightly be on some other ground than ingenuousness. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of 'giving themselves without reservation' to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted to. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land. They invented no new social framework. Rather they brought over bodily the old ways to which they had been accustomed. Tightly concentrated on a hostile frontier, they were conservative beyond belief....(Trans-national America by Randolph S. Bourne).

• A new generation is raising, and I am part of it.As an immigrant living in the "Dreaming Land"(United States of America), I believe that American's society had changed it's perception over immigrants ,however, there is a long way to run to achieve equality.Many are the challenges that an immigrant has to face.Such challenges may lead to several distinctions in society.Based on what I heard and read most Americans thought that immigrants only come to this country to steal their resources, to commit wrongful acts and to serve them,but this perception had changed as immigrants get involve in every single aspect of society development. Truly, we come here to get better opportunities, to pursue a better future for us and our family.Although this may be true ,there is a bunch of immigrants out there committing crimes as well as immoral acts. United States of America whether we agree or disagree is the land where dreams come true.On the other end the new era that the world is living on ,does not allow distinctions among human being,because of it's rapid development. 

Comments by the author: I choose this fragment of the reading because i believe its important to emphasize the role of immigrants in our society.Sooner or later,before or after we all are immigrants.

Power; An Apple with Two Faces

1. Pluralism concentrate their attention not upon the sources of power ,but its exercise. Power to them means "participation in decision making and can be analyzed only after careful examination of a series of concrete decisions". (Two Faces of Power by Peter Bacharad, and Morton S.Brantz). 

• From my especially significant point of view the fact that pluralist do not concentrate their attention on the sources of power ,but it's exercise,means that power is more than just a bunch of people running a country ,city or state.When it comes to the use of the sources of power governments  tend to influence society's decision making process depending upon their interests.In my opinion pluralists focused in the exercise of the sources of power because they believe that the sources of power may not impact society's opinion but it's exercise could.

• This paragraph represents for me that power truly has two face. For instance power seems to be concentrated only in it's sources rather than in how these sources are exercise.The main reason of why i choose this passage is because society tend to believe that,who has power is always who has more sources of power,however after reading i realized that who has power is who exercises the sources of power in the correct way independently on how strong the source maybe.