Hamilton and Jefferson

Jefferson and Hamilton are usually understood as opposites from one another. Where Hamilton favored a strong national government supported by business and finance; Jefferson was more a believer in state's rights and tended to favor the smaller farmers more. However both more or less agreed on what they saw as the unique position of the United States, as well as the need to create a national sense of identity and community. The differences can more accurately be explained by the different methods and different pace at which they sought to realize their goals. Hamilton favored rapid expansion and growth: this is why he favored business and industry, he saw the quicker they grew the faster the government would grow in power. Jefferson did not see the need for as rapid an expansion, believing instead that developing too quickly would lead to serious inequalities and damage the long-term health of the nation. Hamilton tended to be less concerned about equality than Jefferson was.

I choose this quote because I think that is interesting to know how two presidents could have different ways of believing. Opposition is important in politics matters because it is a way on how people may know the differences between presidents.
Two opposite presidents  Hamilton and Jeffereson. While Hamilton believed in to increase business and industry, Jefferson believed in to be in favor of smaller farmers. Hamilton had a clear vission on how to intervene to support business and industry. He was in favor of a rapid expansion and growth of it even though poors were affected. In addition, he saw that rapid growth of business is (sinonym) of power. Jefferson believed that rapid expansion and growth could be dangerous because it could let a serious inequalities and damage. Hamilton believed in inequality, Jeferson not. However, they were a little big agreed on a national sense of identity and community.

Anti- Federalist

"In many of the counties the people did not attend the elections, as they had not an opportunity of judging of the plan. Others did not consider themselves bound by the call of a set of men who assembled at the State-house in Philadelphia and assumed the name of the legislature of Pennsylvania; and some were prevented from voting by the violence of the party who were determined at all events to force down the measure." (P. 126)

The people did not attend the elections because they did not have a say; therefore, they did not see the importance to be part of the elections and to vote. They had different reasons as to why they did not want to vote. For example: some people could not vote at all because the violence of the party were forceful. Others had a different motive for not voting, but in the end, it led for them not to be part of the elections and being part of the government.

I believe that people in Philadelphia thought that was not necessary to attend the election. They felt that they had not reason for to vote because anyway parties would forced them to accept the constitution even though they disagree.

Questions for Midterm Exam

1.    Who were the federalist and anti- federalist? What were the different views and explain how both ideas were combined in the Constitution?

2.    Why was the Declaration of Independence established and how did Thomas Paine Common Sense influence the document?

3.   Select 3 amendments from the Constitution. Explain in detail how each amendment is important to the United States and one court cases in relation to the amendment. 

The constitution of the U.S.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Congress cannot intervene with the decision that people have according to their religion, freedom of speech, or of the press; each person have the right to reunite with others peaceably, and request to government assistance of any complaint.

This quote is important to me because I believe that each person has the right to choose his/ her religion. People have a special relationship with who they believe is his/ her God. Also freedom of speech is other right that I consider vital for each person. Everyone needs to express his/ her feelings even good or bad, and be free as God create us. People have the right to share with others always that do not disturb the tranquility of others. 

On Liberty

The covenant between you and us is the oath you have taken of us, which is to this purpose: that we shall govern you and judge your causes by the rules of God's laws and our own, according to our best skill.

John Winthrop in his speech wanted to express that exist a pact between governants and people. In addition, they can judge and govern under God and rules` men as correspond to their best knowledment. He was telling people that even though he  was impeached by men, the justice of God is superior and people can continue having confidence in governants  because when bad people accuse, exist  one God that will bring to the light everything.

The pact that Winthop is talking about sound funny. I know that God is a reality but I dont think that governants apply the rule as God desire. I believe that politic and religion does not match.

What is America?

It may have seemed something less than a compliment to compare the American Constitution to the Spanish Inquisition. But oddly enough, it does involve a truth; and still more oddly perhaps, it does involve a compliment. The American Constitution does resemble the Spanish Inquisition in this: that it is founded on a creed. America is the only nation in the world that is founded on a creed. That creed is set forth with dogmatic and even theological lucidity in the Declaration of Independence; perhaps the only piece of practical politics that is also theoretical politics and also great literature. It enunciates that all men are equal in their claim to justice, that governments exist to give them that justice, and that their authority is for that reason just. It certainly does condemn anarchism, and it does also by inference condemn atheism, since it clearly names the Creator as the ultimate authority from whom these equal rights are derived. Nobody expects a modern political system to proceed logically in the application of such dogmas, and in the matter of God and Government it is naturally God whose claim is taken more lightly. The point is that there is a creed, if not about divine, at least about human things.

According to the author, the constitution of the United States is compared to the Spanish Inquisition. It is based on maintaining Catholic ortodoxy in their kingdoms. It seems that for the United States perceptions of the inquisition were good. The Spanish Inquisition and the constitution of the United States are based on a creed, a religious belief sistem, thus mixing politics with religion. They want to convince people that they all have equal rights, condemn anarchism and atheism, claiming that the creator has the highest authority itself as people have the same rights. It is illogical to think that a modern political system as the United States can proceed successfully by mixing God, who is divine, with human beliefs, which are not.

I believe that the constitution of the United States is properly constituted if it obeyed as it says. This set is based on that all people are equal and therefore have the same right. However, that is not true because in this country there is much racism and power abuse. Also, if God is giving its rightful place, politics was really well organized and the justice, but people dont have the same rights as God has establihed.