THE DIVIDED APPLE IN POLITICS ;Majority or Minority?

In the 1960s, economist Mancur Olson Jr. developed what he called the "logic of collective action," collective action referring to the combined efforts of people pursuing certain goals, obviously most if not all political actions, are collective actions as well. Olson argues that you can separate "diffuse interests," the will of the majority, from "concentrated interests," minority interests. 

In every aspect of human history there has been inequality.Politics its not an exception. The term diffuse is defined as the action to spread or cause to spread ed in all directions,as oppose to concentrated that refers to come to a single purpose or aim.Such groups ( minority and majority) have surged due to the diversity of opinions and preferences. Majority groups in my view have more influence not by the amount of people that compose it, but for their interests.These groups tend to have a greater reach in society because of the diversity of interests that they pursue. 

On the other hand, minority groups which tend to focus their interests in one direction, which do not allow then to have a great reach in society. for instance, in a supermarket workers have to work more because of the amount of products that such market sells and the size of it,however this is not always true because of all the options that the give to the public allows them to have a greater quantity of products on sale. As opposed to, a pharmacy which is smaller than the supermarket and offer the same products.In this case workers have to work more because the products tend to dwindle. In other words ,both the supermarket and the pharmacy are trying to satisfy needs the supermarket reaches a wider public.Same happens with groups in society.Some groups have a greater reach in society which allows them to have greater influence in society.!!



I choose this fragment of the reading because  in all aspect of human life there has been inequality as well as some people has the most influential opinion . etc!!!!

COMMITTEESS

Both houses of Congress are further divided into several committees. It is at the committee level where most of the hard work of passing legislation is done, this is also the level at which so-called special interests or factions have the most influence. Committees are often just a few to maybe twenty or so people, who debate the fine points of each piece of legislation and try to figure out the best ways to make the legislation practical. Due to the smaller number of people in the committees and the relative low visibility of committee meetings, this again allows interest groups to have more influence over the legislation. Before the entire House or Senate votes on a piece of legislation it goes through a committee first. Of course both the House and Senate must past the same legislation before it can become law. There is even a special committee that works to resolve differences in a bill if either part of Congress passes a bill that is similar but somewhat different from the other bill, the final law must be identical in both the House and Senate.

 The fact that both houses of Congress are divided into several committees,it is a big step for the dis centralization of  particular interests, however some groups have the most influence.In my opinion it is contradict that even when both houses are divided, certain groups have the power,but in my point of view Politics  it self is contradict.indeed, i believe Committees are good for the structural organization of government.
Considering that each committee are often a few to maybe twenty or so people,who debate the fine points of each piece of legislation and try to find out the best ways to make the legislation practical such committees or factions can be influence by the interests of its members..In other words , the size of the committees have its pros and cons.for instance a small group of people may not have the a clear vision  over certain matters.Moreover, a large group of people may have a better vision of whats good for society in that particular matter ,however this type of groups are more susceptible to dis organization. I believe that committees it self are good for the organization of both Houses,however they could be formed by more than 20 people.

I choose this fragment of the reading because the structural organization of both Houses are one of the main point that distinguish a good and bad government.

Civil Disobedience; Disobedience or NOT.

Henry David Thoreau

Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), wrote, the famous essay "Civil Disobedience." The idea of civil disobedience is peculiar to democratic societies. It means breaking the law and thus challenging the authorities, but usually in a non-violent fashion.

Disobedience is defined as the refusal or neglect to obey,However, we have the right to free expression.In my opinion Thoreau's idea of "Civil Disobedience" has one side. First,for democratic societies Civil Disobedience may be a tool to raise its voice thus challenging the authorities,considering, that we live in a society that permits freedom of  expression.The highest law in our land is the U.S. Constitution, which has some amendments, known as the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights guarantees that the government can never deprive people in the U.S. of certain fundamental rights including the right to freedom of religion and to free speech and the due process of law (American Civil Liberties Union).By contrast the action of challenging the authorities in my opinion is not necessary considered as an act of disobedience.For instance,if society believes that X law is whether morally or ethical wrong ,and demands the government a change in it, it does not necessarily means disobedience .In my opinion society as a whole have better sense of whats good or bad for its development rather than a group of people running the country,however if such dis conformity is only expressed by a little group in society then it would not be for the interest of the society as a whole.Indeed, Civil Disobedience does not breaks the law but it challenges the authority.On the opposite way it may be seen as Disobedience because the fact that people are in some cases disagree with the Government and some of its regulations  is not a good action for the Government,thus its interests may be affected.

Nice topic.So far this my favorite. I m totally agree with Thoreau's concept of Civil Disobedience for such reason i choose this fragment of the reading.

Judicial System;Judges.

In a democracy, no one person should wield so much power for so long. Article III of the Constitution provides that federal judges “shall hold their offices during good behavior.” [sic] In practice this language means they serve for life absent voluntary retirement or impeachment. Were we to draft the Constitution today, we would be wise to reconsider this provision.(by Jamal Greene).

 His reasoning for this seems to rest on two main points: one, he argues in some cases judges simply become too old to effectively render judgments in cases, something which requires a person to be at the peak of their mental faculties. Two, he argues that life-term appointments makes the selection process of judges too political. Federal judges are nominated by the President, but approved by the U.S. Senate. Over the last 20-25 years this process has become incredibly complicated due to the inability of opposed political parties to come to agreement (you might remember the Gallup piece from a few weeks ago which pointed to polling data which supports this). Republicans have recently pledged to block any consideration of a Supreme Court nominee for the Obama administration. In this case, Rep. leaders seem to have manufactured a rule saying that a President cannot appoint a Supreme Court judge in his last year in office (even though eleven judges have already been confirmed under those circumstances).

Greene argues that the example of other countries that have term limits or mandatory retirement ages might be a good example, and seems drawn to the idea of an 18-year term. 18 years is by most standards a long term in office, but many would still be opposed to limiting the terms of judges. With the recent death of Antonio Scalia, the question of term limits for judges has again been talked about, but, again, to alter this would require a constitutional amendment, since judges are allowed to serve "during good behavior."

I am absolutely agree with Jamal Greene's argument. In my opinion , this part of the Constitution should be modified or  at least revised,  because as technology changes justice need changes as well.In other words,society's demand and need changes over the years.Crime will always exist,however,life- term positions in the judicial system may lead to an obsolete view of justice.For example, ten years ago X crime may not be considered that serious , but now the same crime may be considered a felony. Indeed, as Mister Greene said" in democracy no one person should wield so much power for so long".Moreover, the fact that Federal judges are nominated by the president , and approved by the U.S senate,may affect the transparency of such selections as well as may be tied to the interest of a particular group.
On the other hand, by reducing the term , a new generation of lawyers and judges will raise.

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.