The Constitution: Article III Summary

The third Article in the constitution laid down the law for the Judicial power in the United States. Section 1 explained that in the United States, the power of judgement will lie in "one sumpreme Court"  and other smaller courts in which Congress will later establish. Section 1 also says that judges will hold their position as long as they have good behavior while on the stand, and they will be compensated for it.
Section 2 of this article shows to which the extent the laws reach. This section says that the Judicial power reaches to all cases which have to do with "Law and Equity, arising under this Constituion,..." Not only does the Judicial power rule over common casses but cases of Ambassadors, public ministers, Consuls, Admiral and Maritime cases, and even State versus State or people versus State cases. Basically section 2 is stating that the Judicial Power reaches to all facets of the nation. It also says that in all trails of Crimes except Impeachment, there should be a Jury present, and the trail should be held in the state in which the Crime was commited. Unless the Crime was commited in no state, then the Congress will decide where the case will be held.
Section 3 of this article speaks of Treason and says its definition is "levying War against them [The US], or in adhering to their Enemis, giving them Aid and Comfort." This section says that no person can be convicted unless there are two witnesses of the act or there is a confession in front of the court. The Congress is said to make the punishment for treason and them alone.

The Federalist Papers: Questions

-Hamilton believed that the problems with the government recommended by the constitution were that if the states felt that a law or a rule assigned by the national government was wrong they had the right to be able to disobey it. He also didnt like the idea that states contribution to the national treasury was based off of a quota in each state. He saw problems with the quota system because he felt that in times of emergency there is no way to tell how much forces a state will need the only thing that will be able to tell is the times and how much force it takes to work towards the end. A strong national governemnt solves these problems by assigning universal law.
-Hamilton meant that the people who try to disobey the national government's law are usually those who are being subdued by the rules the national government has made.
-Hamilton believed the use of the union was for Domestic Factions, Navy, Revenue, and Government economy. Weakness like state disobediance and the treasury based on quota will make all 4 of these Union powers weak.
-Shay's rebellion was a rebellion which took place in the 1770s trying to overturn suffocating taxes and debts within the people. The people who followed Shay were trying to overturn certain laws made which made it hard for poor farmers like the "Shayites" to survive. This supported Hamiltons fear because the minority group quickly tryed to rebel against the majority although the lost it was a quick show of what needed to be changed in the article of confederation.
-Hamilton feels in Article 23 that in order for the government to carry out its duty to protect the nation adn utilize it's army how it should it needs to be able to govern the nation as a whole and use the nations fleets all together under one command. Hamilton's main point is there is no way to know how much force we will need to use in war and because each state had it's own relatively strong government there was no way to put out the nations true power if there are limitations to which states will commit and which will disobey. I agree with Hamilton here because in a time of war the nation will need to come together as one to defeat other foes, and if there is limits in war time that will make the country weak, and while we are looking for more forces, other countries will be full ready to continue their attacks.
-I feel Hamilton's quote in Article 78, although accurate, is flawed because although he is trying to assign full power over the constitution to the judicial branch, he is saying nothing of the other branches and their checks upon judicial decisions.

Homework 2: Reflection On Sam Adams "The Rights Of The Colonists

I feel Samuel Adams speach on "The Rights Of The Colonists" was really his way of eloquently voicing the cries of the colonists. His aim was to not only make the natural rights of the colonists law, but to also give freedom to each man as his own. Adams believed that each man should have the right to look out and live for himself. Adams seemed to be the only one of his time who believed that religions should be seperate from all else, and that each other religion should be able to tollerate the practices of another. Adams felt that every man had enough of a conscience to be able to say what is wrong and what is right in society, and allow his view of god govern his actions and govern his punishment if he does anything unlawful. Adams believed that "The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man; but only to have the law of nature for his rule," This is Adams beliefs for society and their relations to rights and laws in a nutshell. There really should be no super power in society ruling over all because nature already rules over all and needs no help. Although these ideas are agreeable in my eyes I feel that in todays society there is no way in hell that this could ever work because of the corruption in todays man. I feel as days progress and the rich get richer and the poor watch the rich and get poorer, corruption flourishes.
One point Adams made that i couldnt agree with was his view that all men are entitled to have servants to protect their "lives, liberty and property." I think this is extremely hipocritical because the fact that natural rights and life, liberty and property are the fundamental points of his speech he is allowing jobs as a servant to be fine as long as it is to protect ones lifestyle. That was one thing Adams said that I was completly opposed to.

Homework Assignment 1: Reflection On Speech Of Choice

I feel that Roger Williams speech The Bloody Tenet of Persecution, Made More Bloody spoke to me the most out of all four speeches. I feel that Roger Williams speaks of a constant tenet throughout his speech to try and convey a certain feeling that this person being described is within us all. He says "a tenet" before a common description of the actions taken by people who label themselves as believers and worshipers, but are problematic to society because of how they are carrying out their practices of belief. For example, Williams speaks of a tenet who "fights against the common principles of all civility, and the very civil being and combinations of men in nations, cities, etc., by coming (explicitly or implicitly) a spiritual and civil state together, and so confounding and overthrowing the purity and strength of both..." This tenet becomes problematic to not only his religion but to society as a whole when he or she begins to mix religion with their civilty, and allowing rules and regulations to reach over to the other, meshing not only a confusion personally but socially. There are examples of this today, when politicians decide to bring their religion into their speech and nonbelievers of another belief will immediately feel offended because it is usually just to keep a split between religion and state. Roger Williams speech is significant to me because I feel its not only relevant to his time especially, but to ours when so much religious freedoms are being challenged due to the actions of the few.