User talk:Jsemaya1/sandbox

I edited the page for Civil Disobedience because I feel like it left out information drawn specifically from MLK's A Letter From Birmingham Jail. Jsemaya1 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Article Evaluation: — Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.1.161.134 (talk) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC) After reviewing Wikipedia's article on Social contract, I have found that the information in the article is all relevant to the topic of social contract. However, the history section of the article, as well as the topic, more generally, of express consent is not necessarily touched upon in a substantial way. The article is definitely presented in a neutral way, simply because the topic itself does not necessarily provide room for biases to be imposed. Therefore, no real viewpoints are underrepresented or overrepresented in the article. After clicking on a few citations, I have found that all of the ones I tried have properly linked to sources related to topics covered in this article. The sources all seem to suggest that the information in the wiki article is in fact accurate. Most of these sources are from major news networks, such as BBC, and those that are not still seemingly come from reliable sources. Everything that was said in this article, thereby seems to be true according to the sources provided. Though none of the information seems out of date, there could be some expansion in speaking about the history of the social contract and in speaking about the express consent. On the talk page of the article, there is a lot of casual and informal criticism on the topic. Some people broke down the peculiarities of social contract, while others seemed to find ways, behind the scenes, to justify what was written on the page. The article is rated as C-class and it is part of the following WikiProjects: WikiProject Philosophy, WikiProject Politics, WikiProject History, and WikiProject Sociology. Wikipedia focuses more on the philosophers that are creating opinions on social contract, rather than what the actual concept is. This is an acceptable page, however, it is just presented differently than how we presented it in class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsemaya1 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

I edited the page for Social Contract because the information in there didn't cover explicit consent really even close to the depth at which we covered it in class. I also expanded on the history section of it so that it was more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsemaya1 (talk • contribs) 16:26, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Federalist No. 51 Revised
FEDERALIST No. 51 Federalist No. 51, titled: The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments, is an essay by James Madison, the fifty-first of The Federalist Papers. This document was published on February 8, 1788, under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. Federalist No. 51 addresses means by which appropriate checks and balances can be created in government and also advocates a separation of powers within the national government. This idea of checks and balances became a crucial document in the establishment of the modern U.S. system of checks and balances. One of its most important ideas is the often quoted phrase, "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition". In addition, the "if men were angels" argument is famous. The first quote was intended to explain the purpose of the system of checks and balances. In creating this system, Madison's idea was that the politicians and the individuals in public service in the U.S. would all have proclamations and ideas that that they were passionate about and that they wanted to work hard to enact. The logical solution to ensure that laws and strong ideas were not enacted by a small group of partisan individuals was to use a federalist system where each level of government had different branches, each branch having the authority to impact legislation proposed by other branches. One of the main ways that Federalist Paper 51 was able to encourage checks and balances was by emphasizing the word liberty and by describing that liberty would directly result from the implementation of these governmental concepts.

Further, Madison emphasized that although the branches were meant to have checks and balances, the branches would only function to their fullest extent if they were independent of one another. By being independent of one another, the branches would be able to focus on their purpose and the system of checks and balances would only really come into play if disagreements and issues arose within the three branches.

The "if men were angels" quote was meant to imply that not everyone has communal interests in mind and that certain governmental officials are inevitably going to push legislation that is in their own interests, rather than in the interests of their constituents. Madison emphasized that a system of checks and balances would prevent this from happening and he uses the quote to show that checks and balances are necessary because men are not necessarily all angels. This also ties back into the ideas of liberty and equal opportunity that Madison seems to be trying to emphasize through this Federalist paper.

In addition, the original idea of checks and balances was a European idea that had roots in the enlightenment period. Political philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau had ideas that related to this proposal. Further, the idea of a representative democracy as a method of establishing these checks and balances is something that is a pivotal component to the federalist paper, mostly because it helps understand how the different branches of government will be put into place. We also see this idea of checks in balances in other countries, prior to the establishment of this system in the United States. This suggests that the idea of political separation of powers and of checks and balances in government that was implemented in the Unites States is a universal concept that is concrete in political theory. The inclusion of this theory in Federalist 51 is merely reiteration of a sentiment that was already present on an international scale.

The Federalist Papers, as a foundation text of constitutional interpretation, are commonly cited by American jurists and court systems in general. Of all the Federalist Papers, No. 51 is the fourth most-cited document.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsemaya1 (talk • contribs) 22:23, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Federalist No. 9 Revised
Federalist No. 9 is an essay by Alexander Hamilton, the ninth of The Federalist Papers. It was published on November 21, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all The Federalist papers were published. Federalist No. 9 is titled, "The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection." The same subject is continued in the subsequent paper by James Madison, Federalist No. 10. Similar to Federalist 51, this paper emphasizes the importance of establishing a system of checks and balances in order to ensure that the government is intact and operating smoothly.

Publius' argument
A major aspect of Federalist No. 9 is Hamilton's response to the common Anti-Federalist argument based on the theories of Montesquieu, who wrote famously in his The Spirit of the Laws that "it is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist." The Anti-Federalist took his arguments to mean that the federal Union was bound to fail. Hamilton responded that if Montesquieu were taken literally, then since he was thinking of dimensions far smaller even than those of the states, the Americans would have to split themselves into "an infinity of little, jealous, clashing tumultuous commonwealths." Of the many different Federalist Papers, this one was perhaps one of the ones that faced the most opposition, mostly because of the vagueness and non-specific sentiment that was involved with it. More seriously, Hamilton contends that the confederated federal system described in the proposed Constitution would not suffer as Montesquieu predicted because of its confederated, rather than centralized, design. He further argues that Montesquieu himself proposed a confederation of republics as the solution.

This federalist paper also is incredibly helpful in expressing the differences between the arguments that Hamilton makes and the arguments that Madison makes. This paper in particular works well to establish the precedent so that in the case of uprising and rebellion, the military has more force to suppress the uprisings. The reason that this was believed to be a significant component was because of Shays' Rebellion. Overall, Hamilton's idea of federalism stems from his belief that there should be ways of solving all problems that the government may have. This is seen through the checks and balances and the distribution of power that Hamilton suggests should be present in the U.S.