Civil Liberties

“The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies. They are the standing army, and the militia, jailers, constables, posse comitatus,(7) etc. In most cases there is no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense; but they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well. Such command no more respect than men of straw or a lump of dirt. They have the same sort of worth only as horses and dogs. Yet such as these even are commonly esteemed good citizens. Others, as most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions, they are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God. A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the state with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it. A wise man will only be useful as a man, and will not submit to be "clay," and "stop a hole to keep the wind away,”

I believe that this passage by Henry David Thoreau in the article “Civil Disobedience” outlines his entire article about why Civil Disobedience is important in some cases. The thought of fighting for justice and freedom is the central idea of Civil Disobedience. I totally agree with Thoreau’s prospective that people who are working so hard for their country get treated like horses and dogs; they are constructed to work like machines. While most of the politicians have no experience on how hard reality is and they make laws that favor themselves.  

There are very few people in the system who tries to do the right things and tries to make proper laws that might favor every citizens but they rarely get approved. This is where protest and Civil Disobedience comes into play. The citizens have to speak up toward harsh law and make changes for all, especially the new generations. People have to earn their rights and fight for Civil Liberties.

 

 

 

 

Federalism

“let us come out into the light of day; let us enjoy the fresh air of Liberty and Union; let us cherish those hopes which Êbel¿ng to us; let us devote ourselves to those great objects that are fit for our consideration and action; let us raise our conceptions to the magnitude and the importance of the duties that devolve upon us; let our comprehension be as broad as the country for which we act, our aspirations as high as its certain destiny; let us not be pigmies in a case that calls for men. Never did there devolve on any generation of men higher trusts than now devolve upon us, for the preservation of this Constitution and the harmony and peace of all who are destined to live under it. Let us make our generation one of the strongest and brightest links in that golden chain which is destined, I fondly believe, to grapple the people of all the States to this Constitution for ages to come”

I believe that this passage from Daniel Webster, "The Seventh of March Speech" summarizes the entire speech regarding how he feels about the American way of governing. According to Webster’s speech, he believes that peace can be made with American government system where laws are made by the constitution can positively make ever citizen’s life better. The constitution is strong and has to get stronger and there also has to be more justices and fair laws for all citizens in America.  

I strongly agree with Webster’s speech. Some of the constitution law favors low percent of people, which should be changed. Some laws don’t protect enough citizens that need upgrade. Yes, the constitution is a wonderful way of government but is not strong. Laws needs fixing and alterations to new the new generations, so new leaders can run the system and make the constitution stronger, and give every citizens equal rights and freedom.

The Constitution

The third piece by Akhil Reed Amar, looks at the limitations on naturalized citizens for holding office, specifically the President. The Constitution states that only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to be President of the U.S., as he says: "But those American citizens who happen to have been born abroad to non-American parents — and who later choose to become “naturalized” American citizens — are not the full legal equals of those of us born in the U.S. True, naturalized Americans have always been allowed to serve as cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, senators and governors. And at the founding, anyone already a citizen could be president, regardless of birthplace. (Alexander Hamilton, for example, though born in the West Indies, was fully eligible to serve as president under the Constitution he himself helped draft.) But modern-day naturalized citizens are barred from the presidency simply because they were born in the wrong place to the wrong parents."

In this case Amar points out  to one of the laws of constitution "The Constitution states that only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to be President of the U.S" which puts the limitations on naturalized citizens for holding office, specifically the President, Amar believes that eligibility to be president should be opens to all citizens by USA born or not.

I disagree with the idea of changing this law because immigrant who become citizen of USA is always some how tied to their previous culture and most of them can be ethnocentric no matter who it is. America is a multicultural nation, so it is important that a president is raised in the multicultural world not just one race or ethnic group. By born USA citizens would be raised from birth in a multicultural nation and would understand the value of different culture, race, ethnicity and religion; and mostly likely wouldn't make laws or decisions based on the race, culture or religion they favor.