This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
1 AP GOV Federalist 10 Summary Madison, firstly, defines that factions are groups of people who gather together to protect and promote their special economic interests and political opinions. The government, however, is able to control the violence and damage caused by factions. Of course, such control of these factions would not be necessary had not both the supporters and opponents of factions express concern with the political instability produced by rival factions. Given the nature of man, factions are inevitable. Madison states that the most important source of factions, despite differences in wealth and differences in opinion, is the unequal distribution in property. Thus, Madison states that there are all but two ways to control the factions. The first method to control factions would be to remove its causes²keep everything equal. Simply put, in Madison¶s eyes, it is impossible. There are only two ways to remove the causes of a faction: destroy liberty or give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests. However, destroying liberty is a ³cure worse than the disease itself´ and to give every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests is not pragmatic. Inasmuch as the first method goes, the second is just as impractical. The causes of factions are thus part of the nature of man and we must deal with their effects and accept their existence. The government created by the Constitution controls the damage caused by such factions. Furthermore, Madison goes on to talk about the effectiveness of factions. He describes that large factions will be numerous in large republics but, due to sheer size, will be weaker than in small, direct democracies where it is easier for factions to muster up their strength. He
the judicial branch. for it possesses only the power to judge. Hamilton argues that the courts are merely the arbiters between the legislative branch and the people. however. The judicial branch is undoubtedly the weakest branch.finalizes his points in saying that the immediate object of the constitution is to bring the present thirteen states into a secure union. and the separation of power in the government. Firstly. the courts are to interpret the laws and prevent the legislative branch from becoming µoverpowered¶. Hamilton describes that the mode of appointing the judges is in the same mode as appointing officers of the Union in general. Furthermore. the Constitution imposes certain restrictions on the Congress that is designed to protect individual liberties. subject to good behavior. Lastly. The power of the Supreme Court to declare laws unconstitutional does not make the judicial branch superior to the legislative branch. Federalist 78 Summary Hamilton writes the importance of an independent judicial branch and the meaning of judicial review. Hamilton appears to agree with permanency in office²that federal judges can hold their office for life. unless the courts are independent and have the power to declare laws in violation of the Constitution null. the tenure by which they are to hold their places. Hamilton goes on to talk about the different branches of the government. In fact. He does not go any further than that. the weakest. not to act. However. those protections are worthless. His thesis revolves around three main points that he describes: The mode of appointing the judges. Hamilton goes into deep discussion. and the partition of the judiciary authority between different courts²and their relations to each other. for the tenure by which the judges are to hold their places. Its judgments or decisions depend upon the executive branch to carry them out. .
she refuses to admit that she knowingly violated the demands of federal law. I am a Christian. gay rights is supposed to be wrong to me. The members of the senate. getting sworn into Justice is no walk in the park. Although she has already been sworn into justice. In addition. and protected from people. It¶s quite silly how she later argues that it was more important to uphold Harvard¶s non-discrimination policy than to follow clear law that the Supreme Court upheld. she fought. However. I particularly agree with her on this point because just one viewpoint and interpretation of the constitution would hardly suffice nor do justice. Although. pressed Kagan on the nature of her political ideology and her approach to legal analysis. only because my religion obligates me to. During her tenure as Dean of Harvard Law School facilities. this is a new insight into her ideals.Inasmuch as courts go. by nature. It is imperative that the judicial branch ensures that the citizens are secured of their rights. under which states don¶t have to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. I didn¶t particularly agree with this. in a unanimous decision. I¶ve learned many things about this woman that I did not exactly agree with. said she would defend the act. the independence of the courts is necessary to protect the rights of individuals against factions. who work against the peoples¶ interests. Furthermore. Kagan Hearings After listening to and watching the Kagan Hearings. thus. she denied military recruiters equal access to the facilities. right? . nor like. especially Graham and Grassley. I¶ve noticed five specific topics that she was questioned about and answered to. Kagan on the other hand. I must admit. when asked about the Defense of Marriage Act. However. at the very least. to interpret the Constitution. she shined a brighter color than the dull gem she seemed when asked what she would look to. Of course. If she is to be a new justice. both in and outside the government. she could be very open. I found it very ironic that the very system she is trying to now join.
I wonder what new interpretations and changes she will bring. .Overall. 2 bonus points and an applause for the new justice.