Shakespeare’s The Tragedy of Hamlet, Prince of Denmark.

My friend Ashok asked that I provide a commentary on Hamlet.

As a student of Political Philosophy and American Studies I may not seem like the proper person to provide a commentary on William Shakespeare’s epic play Hamlet. However, this semester in pursuance of my Master of American Studies, I am taking a class on the playwright.

The first important aspect of the play is the very beginning; the play Hamlet begins with a question. More important, it is a challenge by a watchman. The question is returned with yet another question, or challenge, by the on coming watchman. The Kingdom of Denmark is on watch after the King has died. Shakespeare’s use of the question to begin his play is curious, as the entire play centers around challenges and questions. How did the King die? Is Claudius, the new king and the dead king’s brother, the cause of the king’s death? Is the dead king’s wife Gertrude guilty as her new husband, the new king? Is Hamlet, the son of the dead King, truly insane or is he simply putting on an antic-disposition? All of these questions riddle throughout the play, but there are even greater esoteric questions that one can ask.

In the second act of the play, Prince Hamlet is charged by the ghost of his dead father to kill his uncle. Thus presents our first question, is it right for a Christian to commit tyrannicide? Is it right for a Prince to commit tyrannicide? And if it is right, under what circumstances can a Christian or a Prince commit tyrannicide? Hamlet spends the play in contemplation, in fact he spends more time in contemplation than any other Shakespearean character. Yet he spends very little time contemplating the justice in his charge to commit tyrannicide. Instead, Hamlet spends his time contemplating the meaning of life. His time thinking causes him to delay in his charge, yet at other times (death of Polonius) Hamlet acts quickly and almost without any thought.

To answer the first questions concerning tyrannicide, before we can answer the key question of whether or not he has a right to commit tyrannicide, we have other questions must ask. Hamlet has to have a justification for tyrannicide, even in Protestant thought tyrannicide is acceptable but not without just cause. As it stands in the play only two people know for a fact that Claudius killed Hamlet the elder…Claudius and Hamlet. Hamlet the younger only knows this fact through a ghost, which he doesn’t know if the Ghost is a belligerent or not. As Hamlet himself admits only, “Heaven and Hell” know whether or not the Ghost can truly be trusted. And since no other character attests to having heard the Ghost, Hamlet is left alone to defend his actions based on the information of a Ghost. As a result, Hamlet does have legitimate cause to delay in his cause so that Claudius has a chance to incriminate himself. But before Hamlet can even consider killing Claudius, he must be prepared to take the throne once the deed is done. This brings us to our first problem of committing tyrannicide. Hamlet is considered by other characters in the play a competent leader. Ophelia in her sentiments supports the theory that Hamlet is capable of being king. He also appears to be capable in foreign policy, but he doesn’t appear thrilled to become King.

According to St. Thomas Aquinas Tyrannicide is acceptable in two situations, when there is a Tyrant by Usurpation or a Tyrant by Oppression. In this instance, is Claudius a Tyrant by Usurpation? Did he usurp the legitimate king and take his throne? In Denmark the monarchy is elected, albeit for life. The first time we see Claudius we find that he had the support of the people for his reign and in this instance Hamlet cannot legitimately commit Tyrannicide. But is Claudius a Tyrant by Oppression? Again, Claudius appears to have the support of the Danish people. He also doesn’t seem to be an oppressive ruler, and only resigns to become such towards Hamlet once it becomes clear Hamlet seeks to murder him. And so at least in the Catholic understanding, Hamlet does not have just cause to murder the king.

The first question of the play then, whether or not Hamlet is entitled and justified in committing Tyrannicide, is answered in the negative at every turn. Hamlet is not prepared to take the throne, and Claudius is neither a usurper nor an oppressive ruler.

The second major question then is found throughout Hamlet’s soliloquies. Hamlet has more soliloquies than any other Shakespearean character with seven. The soliloquies are important, because throughout the play, with the exception of his first appearance, Hamlet is putting on his antic disposition. As a result, Hamlet’s true thoughts and feelings come through in his soliloquies. As such, to what extent is Hamlet’s concern with Fortune and Honor in contest with his charge to commit tyrannicide?

The first soliloquy is the most unique because it comes before Hamlet decides to put on an antic disposition and even before the Ghost appears to him. The first theme found in the soliloquies is suicide. Hamlet contemplates suicide so that the, “sullied flesh would melt away.” In this instance, flesh can mean either the actual physical human flesh that covers the body, or it could mean the passions. Flesh is another theme found throughout Hamlet’s soliloquies and it seems that it is constantly connected to the theme of Fortune. Finally, in the first soliloquy Hamlet does what he does throughout, he generalizes. In this instance, Hamlet generalizes about life through the particulars of his own. He also generalizes about women through his mother Gertrude. In his generalizations about women he comes to feel that they are weak and fragile and this is something he ultimately generalizes about Ophelia.

The struggle for Hamlet about tyrannicide is deeper than it’s proper justice. Like in his thoughts of suicide, Hamlet is concerned with saving all from the flesh and in particular Claudius. He doesn’t want to send Claudius to Hell, he wants to save him from his passions or his flesh. Flesh and passions are connected to Fortune and as a result Reason is connected with God. Passion and Fortune govern the affairs of men, and neither Reason or God can rule over them and this upsets Hamlet to the point that he wants to be released and wants to release everyone else. Hamlet’s anger over the inability to govern the Passions and Fortune are expressed in the recitation of Aeneas’s story to Dido about the Fall of Troy. Hamlet sees himself as Pyrrhus, the son of Achilles who wants to murder Priam to avenge his father. But like Hamlet, Pyrrhus is unwilling to do what he must to avenge Achilles.

Hamlet contemplates this speech in his third soliloquy, where he is aware of his father’s death but cannot bring himself to perform the murder. As a result, instead of action Hamlet decides to catch Claudius in speech. He does this in part to find if the Ghost is from heaven or hell. Hamlet authors lines to insert into the play within the play to convince Claudius to admit the murder. What is odd about the lines is that Hamlet doesn’t create the lines to bring out Claudius’s guilt, but rather to torment his mother over her disgrace. Her frailty has been a point of contention for Hamlet throughout the play.

The typical reading of Hamlet’s fourth Soliloquy, the famous “To be or not to be” soliloquy, is that it is about suicide. Hamlet begins the soliloquy generalizing about life itself, “being or not being.” Again fortune and flesh play a key role in Hamlet’s thoughts. The passions are always in concert with fortune, and reason can never rule over them and so it makes life unbearable for Hamlet. He sees death as a passageway to Heaven, which is our native country; but like the famous Hotel California, once you check in you may never leave. It is also in this soliloquy where Hamlet admits clearly that the passions do not submit to reason.

The problem with reason for Hamlet is that he sees it as two functions: the faculty that has the ability to understand events and actions and the faculty which governs the passions.Hamlet strives to see them both as one but cannot; the play itself is about these two functions of reason. The ability to control the passions with the ability to understand. Hamlet must be able to rise above his passion to kill Claudius to avenge his father, and use the ability to understand to do it.

The final soliloquy before the end of the play concerns itself with one basic premise of the play. Hamlet’s deliberation always resolves down tot he futility of action, in particular political action. Yet Hamlet admits that he has, “cause, and will, and strength, and means to [kill Claudius.]” The final soliloquy focuses around the concept of honor, and like the first soliloquy it stands unique. The final soliloquy centers around Hamlet recovering himself and is no ready to do what his dead father charged him to do. What prompted this change is difficult, was it the encounter with Fortenbras’s men? Or was it Ophelia who saved him? If it was Fortenbras, does Hamlet want to be like him? Fortenbras seems to be the timocratic man to a fault.

Finally, Hamlet finally resolves to kill Claudius only after he himself has become Claudius. His murder of Polonius has caused the suicide of Ophelia, and now his unwillingness to take responsibility for the destruction of Polonius’s family will bring about the destruction of Laertes.

So to conclude, the play Hamlet is about the justice of tyrannicide, and overcoming the passions.

Published in:  on February 4, 2010 at 10:03 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , ,

The Nature of Government and of the United States as Affecting the Right to Secession

The question of Secession was raised immediately after the first Southern states began to leave the Union. President Abraham Lincoln ordered Federal troops to invade the South in hopes of unifying the nation. Following the war, Orestes Brownson wrote on the issue of whether or not Secession was in fact legal or constitutional. Secession is not constitutional, as Orestes Brownson argues in the American Republic, on the grounds that government itself is in dissolvable.

Orestes Brownson divides his argument against Secession into four major themes: the origins of government, the constitution of government, the United States, and the United States Constitution. These four main arguments supply the basis upon which Brownson argues that secession is unconstitutional. In order to understand why secession is unconstitutional, it is necessary to examine Brownson’s four main arguments first.

The circumstances surrounding the secession of the southern states in 1860 stem from a long argument concerning which was superior, the state or federal government. The necessity of government and man’s place in society is self evident according to Brownson who argues, “Hence as man is nowhere found out of society, so nowhere is society found without government.”[1] As such, the question over whether or not man belongs in society and whether or not society requires government is put to rest by Brownson. From the ancient Greek philosophers Plato, Xenophon and Aristotle to the Enlightenment philosophers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacque Rousseau the question of the origins of society and government have been argued.

Yet these philosophers do agree on at least a handful of axioms of government and man’s loyalty to government. Brownson sums up the responsibilities of government by stating:

“[Government] defines and protects the right of property, creates and maintains a medium in which religion can exert her supernatural energy, promotes learning, fosters science and art, advances civilization, and contributes as a powerful means to the fulfillment by man of the Divine purpose in his existence.”[2]

These axioms are agreed upon by most political philosophers throughout time, although the specific aim of government may be different. But as long as these are maintained and protected, the individual person in society is obligated to remain loyal to the society and government. As Thomas Hobbes might agree, a duly instituted regime has the authority to do as it pleases. However, if it fails to protect the people it is no longer legitimate. Tyranny is never legitimate. We are required to remain loyal as long as our liberty is secure.[§][3]

Yet, while the majority of political philosophy agrees that there are certain responsibilities of both society and the citizen, the origins of government differs drastically from one philosopher to the next. The six origins of government according to Brownson include:

Government originates in the right of the father to govern his child.

It originates in convention, and is a social compact.

It originates in the people, who, collectively taken, are sovereign.

Government springs from the spontaneous development of nature.

It derives its right from the immediate and express appointment of God.

From God through the Pope, or visible head of the spiritual society

From God through the people

From God through the natural law[4]

The first of these origins is taken directly from two sources, the first is Aristotle and the second is Sir Robert Filmer. Aristotle’s argument, stemming from book one of the Politics demonstrates that the origins of society and government come from the family. Aristotle argues that because people wish to mimic the gods, they favor monarchy as their choice of government with the family ruled by the father, the village ruled by the eldest male, and the city ruled by the king. While Aristotle admits that other forms of government do exist, and may in fact be more desirable than monarchy people will still yearn for it naturally. This argument is also connected to Divine Right of Kings set forth most completely by Sir Robert Filmer.  Sir Robert Filmer, in his Patriarcha, makes an argument in favor of Divine Right monarchy stemming first from Adam’s sovereignty over his children. Brownson, however, disagrees both with Aristotle and Filmer by rejecting monarchy in favor for republican government. . “The distinctive mark of republicanism is the substitution of the state for the personal chief, and public authority for personal or private right.”[5] Governments based on the principle of fatherhood are despotic. Republicanism is the true government because the rulers rule for and on behalf of the state. Rulers who are proprietors of the land are not rulers. Aristotle is most famous for putting forth the argument that government stems from the family, is critiqued with the moderns who reject paternal rule. One must rule for the sake of the commonwealth.

Following the classical understanding, Brownson critiques the modern understanding of government as being a social compact. “The state, as defined by the elder Adams, is held to be a voluntary association of individuals. Individuals create civil society, and may uncreate it whenever they judge it advisable.” Brownson rejects the concept that society can be established and abolished at will and calls America out, “Prior to the Southern Rebellion, nearly every American asserted with Lafayette, ‘the sacred right of insurrection’ or revolution…”[6] However, sovereignty cannot be relinquished, neither by a state/nation nor by a person. The Enlightenment holds that people are sovereign in a state of nature and that they give up part of that sovereignty when they enter society. “But individuals cannot give up what they have not, and no individual has in himself the right to govern another.” Modern political philosophers suppose a state of nature, which supposes a social contract. Brownson rejects the social contract because man cannot willingly forfeit his rights and because man is bound into society. Furthermore, men in nature fail to be able to acquire the knowledge necessary to create a civil society.

While there are still four other origins of government according to political philosophy, the first two are the most important for the United States. The United States was born out of the modern understanding of government, the only enlightened government. The United States, as a result, was an independent nation and a republic before it declared independence from England. Brownson’s arguments against the ancient and modern assertion of the origins of government indicate that the United States as a society had to exist prior to the revolution. However, the question is not whether there is a United States but whether it formed as a collection of sovereign, independent nations or whether it formed as a single whole. The same principle applies to the society as it does to the individual: a sovereign society cannot give up its sovereignty. If this is the case, then the several states never gave up their sovereignty and the United States as a single entity never existed. Brownson argues against the individual sovereignty of the states by stating, “The colonies were all erected and endowed with their rights and powers by one and the same national authority, and the colonist were subjects of one and the same national sovereign.”[7]However, if the United States exists as a single entity it would be impossible for the states to be independently sovereign.[8] Thus, if the United States is a society, then the states would be inferior to the federal government. In this instance, the states would not be capable of secession from the Union because they are not sovereign nations in themselves.

The American Constitution, therefore, is the only element left in determining whether or not the southern states had a right to secession in 1861.           As discussed in his chapter on the origins of constitutions, a constitution is not something created, as man is a creature not a creator. Under the auspices of this same argument, the U.S. Constitution is understood by Brownson as, “Two-fold, written and unwritten, the constitution of the people and the constitution of the government.”[9] This unwritten constitution is what Brownson refers to as the Providential constitution. To Brownson, this Providential constitution is not something created but rather comes into existence along side the nation.[10] The American Providential constitution is unique to the United States and never seen elsewhere in the world. Our Constitution is made up of both sovereign and dependent states, and is neither a confederacy nor centralized state.[11] We are still yet one people divided into states but still united. “The Union and the States were born together, are inseparable in their constitution…”[12] The United States Constitution declares the American people as, “We the people of the United States…” And as such, the American people are united together rather than a loose confederacy of sovereign nations with mutual interests.[13]

The origins of the American system and the nature of the American Constitution are seen most clearly through Brownson’s understanding of territorial democracy. The thirteen original colonies that formed together as the United States of America did not exist under their own authority. They were created by the authority of the King of England and joined together as United Colonies under the authority of the Continental Congress. The various states that have come into the Union since the creation of the United States Constitution can only do so under the authority of the United States Congress.[14] The individuals living within a given territory are granted democracy within their given territory, but that territory does not have sovereign authority. Rather, it is subject totally to the United States Congress. The people living in the territory, “are subjects of the United States, without any political rights whatever, and, though a part of the population, are no part of the sovereign people of the United States.”[15] Or more simply put, are not citizens. The people of the territory are given the authority by the United States to, “meet in convention, draw up and adopt a constitution declaring or assuming them to be a State, elect State officers, senators, and representatives in the State legislature, and representatives and senators in Congress, but they are not yet a state.”[16]

Thus, when a territory becomes a State and the people of that territory go from being subjects to citizens of the United States that State only exists by the will and authority of the United States Congress. None of the States exist by themselves with sovereign authority. Brownson demonstrates this time and again as showing that society and government are not created and that the United States is the sovereign and not the individual states. As a result, Secession of the various states in 1861 could not be legally permitted as they had no authority independent of the United States to secede from the Union. From the time the first colonies were settled to when the territories became states, the individual states depended upon an outside authority for their creation. As such, outside the Union they are not states.

[1] Brownson, Orestes. The American Republic. ( Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2003) pg. 12

[2] Ibid. 13

[3] “But it is never lawful to resist the rightful sovereign, for it can never be right to resist right, and the rightful sovereign is the constitutional exercise of his power can never be said to abuse it.” Ibid. 17

[4] Ibid 19-20

[5] Ibid. 23

[6] Ibid. 34

[7] Ibid. 136

[8] “If the several States of the Union were severally sovereign states when they met in the convention…” Ibid. 127

[9] Ibid. 141

[10] Ibid. 141, “It is Providential, not made by the nation, but born with it.”

[11] Ibid 141, “The unwritten or Providential constitution of the United States is peculiar…”

[12] Ibid 144

[13] Ibid. 145 “united, not confederate States.”

[14] Ibid. 145 “Even then it was felt that the organization and constitution of a State in the Union could be regularly effected only by the permission of the Congress; and no Territory can, it is well know, regularly organize itself as a State…”

[15] Ibid. 146

[16] Ibid. 146

Published in:  on February 2, 2010 at 2:24 am Comments (5)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

How the Constitution provides for energy and stability while maintaining liberty and republicanism through separation of powers.

Energy and stability have been the greatest questions in government since the ancients first developed the polis. Prior to the United States, no country made better efforts to perfect the art of separation of powers than England has made. Publius describes in Federalist 37 the need for stability and energy in the new government, while at the same time protecting the liberty of the people and the republican way of life. The Constitution of 1787 achieves these aims through a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government and the specific make up of the departments.

In order to understand Publius’ argument better, it would be best to take his argument in Federalist 37 first, followed by his discussion of the relationship between the three branches of government. Lastly I will view his discussion of the specific make up of the various branches of the United States Government.

Publius argues for the necessity of a separation of powers in the new government in order to provide for the necessary stability and energy in government while protecting liberty and republicanism. In order to do this he argues that there most be present a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government. Furthermore, there must be a separation of powers between that of the States and Federal governments. Publius says, “Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to republican form.”[1] The first attempt at creating a republic with the Articles of Confederation failed due to a lack of energy and stability within the government, thus it was pertinent to create in the new government fixes for these problems. Publius then goes on to explain:

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people by a short duration of their appointments; and that even this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands.[2]

This is the genius of the new Constitution according to Publius, it has attained the short periods of appointment and dividing the government among many hands. In order that the liberty of the people is not offended, they must remain the source of power for the government.

Yet this is not enough, in order to understand how this present in the Constitution Publius explains further in papers 47-51. In the first of these papers, Publius addresses the allegations by opponents of the proposed plan that it lacks a separation of powers. Publius explains Montesquieu’s argument for the separation of powers by saying, “he did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.”[3] The magistrate must have the authority to not only enforce the laws passed by the legislative, but also to veto laws that violate the Constitution, and the judicial cannot create laws but can advise the legislative.[4] Publius then goes on to demonstrate that the various Constitutions of the states provide for more blending of the branches of government than the proposed Federal Constitution.

And then in Federalist 48 Publius describes how the Federal Constitution provides a defense through a moderate blend of the branches of government. At first he argues:

But in a representative republic where the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and duration of his power, and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired by a supposed influence over the people with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people out to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.[5]

So in order to prevent the encroachments of the legislative on the rights and liberties of the people, the executive and judicial branches must have authority to reign in the power of the legislative. The legislative is also apt to encroach on the power and freedom of the other branches through pay[6], and thus they must be limited on how they are able to alter the pay of these other branches. Publius provides examples of Virginia and Pennsylvania where the powers of the legislative were not protected against and the judicial and executive branches were usurped by the authority of the legislative. Having demonstrated the dangers of allowing unbridled power to exist within the legislative branch, Publius goes on to explain how it might be possible to prevent the encroachments of one branch on the power of another.

Federalist 49 provides for this explanation and Publius defines that the people alone are the source of charter for the Constitution and its parts. Thus the people alone should be consulted when the powers of the Constitution are in question as to demolishing them, or creating a new power.[7] Appeals to the people are necessary in order to prevent the encroachments of power by the various branches. Yet frequent appeals are insufficient in protecting the freedom of the society. Not only this but it is impossible, as Publius explains, “The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people.”[8] Yet the legislative is many in number and can be known by a larger number of the people.[9] Thus the legislative would be most likely to take advantage of the appeals from the people and thus encroach on the various powers of the other branches. As such frequent appeals of the people could turn out to be bad for the stability, energy and liberty of the society as the legislative might take their appeals as a mandate. And so how this can be moderated is discussed next by Publius.

Publius states at the beginning of Federalist 50, “It may be contended, perhaps, that instead of occasional appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, periodical appeals are proper…”[10] In order to achieve this, Publius argues that a fixed period for appeals to the people could be detrimental to the purpose of those appeals. If they are too close together Publius argues, “the measures to be reviewed and rectified will have been of recent date, and will be connected with all the circumstances which tend to vitiate and pervert the result of occasional revisions.”[11] Yet by the same token, if they are too far apart then the people are likely not to know each other and to be unaware of the circumstances which lead to the need for revisions. [12] To demonstrate his point, Publius once again looks to the states for an example. He tells of how in Pennsylvania there had been a meeting of censorial council to remedy the defects of their Constitution. He elucidates however that the members of the council were prominent citizens who were members of the parties within the state. Secondly, some of the members of the council had served in the legislative and executive departments. Third, the proceedings of the council were disrupted by the factionalism of the members themselves. And finally, the council either did not understand the limits placed on the legislative and executive, or the legislative completely ignored the changes made by the censorial council.[13] Publius demonstrates properly the difficulty of having occasional or frequent appeals to the people for the remedy of the defects for the Constitution.

And so Publius goes on to discuss in Federalist 51 the structure of the government in regards to checks and balances. He states, “it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”[14] The importance of each department having its own will is demonstrated in the preceding papers, where Publius demonstrates the likely chances of an encroachment and usurpation by the legislative. In order to achieve this, Publius also states, “It is equally evident that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed to their offices.”[15] Thus the departments must have a will of their own and should not be made dependent on the other departments for their pay. But at the same time Publius argues that the members of the various departments must be given the constitutional means and personal motives to protect against the encroachment of another department on their own.[16] Publius argues, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It must be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”[17] However, Publius also reminds the reader that the legislative must be predominant in republics. In order to properly control the legislative against usurpation Publius argues:

The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.[18]

By dividing the authority of the legislative, a republic is capable of controlling the growth of power and influence of the legislative. Yet this is not enough, as Publius points out it is important in a “compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.”[19] By dividing the legislative, you weaken its ability to encroach on the authority of the other branches. But by dividing the government into two different governments and allotting them different powers a republic can prevent the creation of a tyranny.

However, one question still remains and that is how the different bodies of government are erected for the purposes presented in Federalist 51. The various branches must be provided with different powers so that no one branch can consolidate that power. The branches must also have varying degrees of separation from the people, so that the passions of the majority cannot rule in society. In regards to the legislative branch, the branch should be split into two distinct houses with one having more of a dependence and response to the people than the other. As the legislative branch is closest to the people, and thus lays one of legislative threats, it is proper that it be divided so as to limit this closeness with the people. The first branch of the legislative Publius discusses is thus the House of Representatives, which is designed to be the department most dependent on the people. Publius describes, “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.”[20] The House of Representatives will only share in the legislative authority of the government and will be able to respond to the passions of the people while the upper house will be able to filter out the reason. This great authority constitutes a need for a shorter duration of power as Publius states, “It is a received and well-founded maxim that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the great out to be its duration…”[21] Further, the House of Representatives will be watched not only by the people through its direct dependence on them, but also by the collateral branch of the legislative.

Next Publius discusses the Senate, which serves as the connection between the States and the Federal government as directed by the un-amended Constitution.  On this Publius states, “It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”[22] So that the States retain some type of authority under the new Constitution, it is important that they be given the authority to appoint the members of the Senate. The advantage of this stands that now law cannot be passed without the consent of both the people and the States.[23] And it also serves as a way to prevent members of the legislative body from forgetting their constituents by requiring the laws to be passed by both distinct bodies. Publius goes on to say:

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by the factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.[24]

The Senate’s mutability is important as well, so that the members restrain their passions and tyrannical nature. By having the Senate elected by the States, the States have their own elections for government offices. By changing the government representatives in the States, the Senate will be apt to change and thus opinions will be changed. Their length of office will allow the Senate the opportunity to learn the laws of the nation as well, and so that they are not constantly changing and that the opinions and measures remain some what consistent.[25] The importance of the Senate within the make up of checks and balances and separation of powers is clear. It serves as a check on the passions of the people, while balancing the representation of the States within the Federal government. Further the two branches of the legislative provide for stability and energy in the new government by removing the passions of the people and allowing for competition within the branches.

Thus next Publius discusses the executive branch, by far the most controversial of the day and most in need of defense by Publius. Publius discusses the mode of electing the President in Federalist 68. As with the legislative, the mode of electing the President must have a way of preventing the passions of the majority from ruling. Thus the Electoral College was devised as a way of preventing the encroachments of the people’s passions from entering into the election of the President. Publius describes, “It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.”[26] By doing this the Electoral College is made up of a small number of individuals so that deliberation is permitted in the election of the new President. Publius says, “This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of the President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”[27] As for the proper place of the executive in the stability and energy of government, he is of the most importance. As Publius says, “A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory must be, in practice, a bad government.”[28] The executive must be strong and energetic in order to properly execute the laws he is charged to enforce. Publius calls “united; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers”[29] to be what constitutes an energetic executive. Energy is found in unity as in a single person the powers of the executive can be carried out quickly without delay. If the executive power were divided among more than one person, it would be subject to deliberation which will prevent an energetic executive. [30] Likewise, the President’s tenure of office is important for his energy. The duration of office is also an important element in the stability of the executive. If he stays too long, then he is apt to be too firm and possibly encroach on the powers of the legislative. Yet if he is tenure is too short then he is apt to fall prey to the legislative.[31] Shortness in the tenure of office is also likely to prevent the interest of the executive from performing his duties. This is also the argument used by Publius in Federalist 72 in regards to the reelection of an executive; by allowing him to run for reelection, he will watch how he acts in office so that the people look upon him favorably.[32] These are the aspects which allow for an energetic and stable executive, without which the government as a whole would lack stability and energy.

Lastly, Publius discusses the importance of the Judiciary in the make up of the new Constitution. Publius calls the Federal judiciary, “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”[33] The purpose of the Federal judiciary he proposes is to prevent “the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”[34] Publius counters the fears of judicial usurpation by asserting that the Federal judiciary will be the weakest of all the branches as it lacks power over the purse and sword. Publius further argues:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.[35]

The Judicial branch will have no authority over the purse or over the sword, but instead only over judgment.[36] It will thus be able to prevent against legislative and executive encroachments by striking down laws which are contrary to the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States. The separation of the judicial from the legislative is also important so as to allow the judges to exercise their judgment without fear of reprisal by the legislative branch. Thus, the salaries of the judges cannot be lowered so as not to influence their opinions.[37] Their tenure of office also allows for freedom of judgment in judicial matters. Their appointment is for during good behavior, which prevents their judgment from being dependent on reelection, which may have a negative effect on their opinions. Thus through the judicial department is called upon to be safeguard against the encroachments of the representative and executive bodies. It will further only have the power of judgment, not the power of the purse or the sword. And it will further lack dependence on the legislative branch because their salaries cannot be lowered and their tenure of office is during good behavior, not apt to reelection.

The Federalist lays out a discussion of how energy and stability will be present in the new Constitution without violating the principles of republican government and the liberties of the people. As such, the basic necessity to ensure this requires a separation of powers. Publius describes how the various departments of the new government participate and uphold the principles of the separation of powers. He further demonstrates how the people and States partake in the controlling of the new government by their participation in the election of the houses of the legislative. Publius properly upholds his argument in Federalist 37 in his discussion of the following papers.

[1]Federalist 37, in Alexander Hamilton et al., The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter, introduction and notes by Charles R. Kesler (New York: New American Library, Mentor, 1999), 194.

[2] Federalist 37, 195

[3] Federalist 47, 270

[4] Federalist 47, 271

[5] Federalist 48, 277

[6] “as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people…”Federalist 48, 278

[7] “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power…” Federalist 49, 281-282

[8] Federalist 49, 284

[9] “The members of the legislative department…” Federalist 49, 284

[10] Federalist 50, 285

[11] Federalist 50, 286

[12] “If the periods be distant from each other…” Federalist 50, 286

[13] “Pennsylvania in 1783 and 1784, was, as we have seen….” Federalist 50, 286

[14] Federalist 51, 289

[15] Federalist 51, 289

[16] “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several…” Federalist 51, 289

[17] Federalist 51, 290

[18] Federalist 51, 290

[19] Federalist 51, 291

[20] Federalist 52, 295

[21] Federalist 52, 298

[22] Federalist 62, 345

[23] Federalist 62, 346

[24] Federalist 62, 347

[25] “The mutability in the public councils…” Federalist 62, 348

[26] Federalist 68, 380

[27] Federalist 68, 382

[28] Federalist 70, 391

[29] Federalist 70, 392

[30] Federalist 70, 392

[31] “Duration in office has been mentioned…”Federalist 71, 399

[32] “The first is necessary to give the officer himself….” Federalist 72, 404

[33] Federalist 78, 433

[34] Federalist 78, 433

[35] Federalist 78, 433

[36] Federalist 78, 433

[37] Federalist 79, 441

Published in:  on December 6, 2009 at 7:43 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My new store

Boston_Brew

Published in:  on December 1, 2009 at 2:13 am Comments (1)

Once again Democracy fails

Hrm, so few people voted in today’s Constitutional amendment election in Texas. Why? Well namely because the government does such a poor job of actually telling people about it, the vast majority of Texans probably had no clue because THEIR elected officials wanted to  keep them in the dark. If you insist on having a constitutional amendment election every two years, then shouldn’t you pass legislation that authorizes the mass publication of what is to be voted on? Seriously people, how difficult is it to buy billboard space, plaster TV and radio commercials ever fifteen minutes, and put it in major magazines and news papers! It’s pretty clear that the Progressives who so influenced changes in our Republican system had no clue about how the people really think when it comes to government. You can’t give the people power and then forget to remind them that they have it.

Second? Democracy never works, especially not on such a large scale as Texas. The Founding Fathers of America understood this and established a Republic, where there would be minimal actual involvement by the people. Texas failed to understand this principle and ate from the tree of Progressives who thought Representative Democracy was superior than Republic. The government should be given the power to do what is necessary, because the people are the worst custodians of their own government. For over 200 years our government has operated almost without hiccup under the Philadelphia Constitution of 1787, a Constitution that ushered in a Republican America. Texas on the other hand? Let’s have a dysfunctional Constitution and whenever something needs to be done let’s amend the Constitution. Since its adoption in the late 1780’s, the American Constitution has been amended a grand total of 27 times; the Texas Constitution dates back to the late 19th century and has been amended well over 100 times. Now normal people, mind you Texans apparently are not normal, would realize a bad Constitution when they see one. Thomas Jefferson so poetically stated that the People should rewrite their Constitution ever generation (20 years). Well Texas, why don’t you break out the parchment and feather pen and rewrite the Constitution for the State of Texas? Remember the words of John Adams, “There has never been a democracy that has not committed suicide.” Adhere to the words of John Adams before the Texas Democracy falls into an oligarchy, or worse a tyranny.

Published in:  on November 3, 2009 at 11:20 pm Leave a Comment

We selfish assholes

Consider the common scenario for a moment: Boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, boy or girl leaves the other. At some point or another we have all had a personal experience with this scenario whether we were the leavee, or the leaver. The reasons for this are as wide spread as the stars in the heavens and to pinpoint the exact reason why we end up leaving or are left would be too taxing to explore in a simple blog post. Rather, we should refine our inquiry to a specific topic that will allow us to explore the reasons behind why we do the things we do in our relationships with others. To begin this inquiry, we must first ask ourselves, “what is love?” To answer this question we might turn to a number of different sources from self help books, to philosophy, to religion; I choose the middle. In his dialogue Symposium, the great philosopher Plato attempts to ask and answer the question we have before ourselves now. The story presents many different views of what love is, one is that it is purely scientific, another and possibly the most interesting is presented by the Greek comic playwright Aristophanes. Aristophanes describes love as a desire to seek our other half; in the beginning all humans were connected to their other half but because we were only focused on ourselves and not on the worship of the gods we were separated and scattered. We spend our lives searching out our other half and depending upon other sources, in this case the gods of Greece, in hopes that we will have better luck.  In reality we do sometimes appeal to God in hopes that He will allow us to find our one true love, others turn to magic, others just ignore the idea that we are some how meant for only one person in the world. But what happens when we find our one true love and for some reason or another they aren’t what we expected? They’re too short, too fat, too stupid, are physically or mentally disabled, etc. What then? Too often than not we leave that person and pass it off as, “well, they weren’t really the one for me.”

The new movie Adam, staring Hugh Dancy as a Asperger’s patient explores the circumstances of when boy meets girl, they fall in love and the other leaves. Asperger’s Syndrome is a member of the Autistic family where one is unable to cope with the emotional realities of the world; Asperger’s patients come off as disinterested, or sometimes too blunt because they are unable to recognize the subtitles of human emotions. As the main character Adam is faced with having to be alone for the first time in his life upon the death of his father, he meets Beth; Beth is a teacher who has just moved into the same apartment building as Adam. They develop an acquired acquaintance before Beth is finally told by Adam of his condition. It would appear on the surface that Beth initially falls for Adam out of pity, but by the end of the movie the audience is convinced that she did truly love him. It should be pointed out that this post does contain spoilers for the movie Adam. She is faced to ask herself, despite her love for Adam, is he capable of truly loving her? The answer comes when Adam and Beth are close to moving out to California for a job Adam has received. Adam admits to loving Beth, only after hearing her say he has never told her that while on the phone with her mother. He also tells her that he needs her, because she is a part of him and also because he needs her for the assistance she could provide him.

With a disabled person, whether physical or mental, the unfortunate reality is that whomever they love does end up being both a part of them, and a person who can help take care of them. Friends and family of the disabled can cope with this reality better than a potential partner because they are not forced to deal with the disability in ways the partner will evidently have to. Family will come closest to what the partner will have to deal with more than any friend will. The other unfortunate reality is expressed in the movie, as it is often times that women who fall for disabled men are unable to cope with the realities of what that love will entail. This ladies, should be a lesson that no matter how independent you claim to be, when the tables are turned and you are asked to love and help someone else more often than not you will leave. This is not meant to be a rude observation, but as a disabled male myself I have experienced this on some level with members of the opposite sex. Either way, the prospect of having to care for someone who may be unable to care for themselves independently of another scares all of us away even if that person is the one whom providence has separated from our self.

The question we are forced to ask ourselves at some point in the relationship is, can the idea that this person loves us whether they are able to express it or not over come the reality that they are in need of us in a very real way? We will almost always do the selfish act and run away from happiness with someone who needs us. A relationship with someone, such as the disabled, is not an easy relationship to handle and it is certainly not the romantic relationship we grow up seeing in movies, and on T.V. and read in books or magazines. It is a commitment that we, as selfish animals, are too often unable to make despite our feelings for that person. Even in Adam, despite Beth’s willingness to work with Adam’s condition she is ultimately unable to commit to him because he is unable to care for her in the way she insists on being cared for. She admits in a narration at the beginning of the movie that Adam teaches her how to love, in a way he demonstrates to her that the man she is meant to be with and the man she thinks she needs are two different men. Likewise,when we meet the person we were meant to be with it so often conflicts with the reality of who we thought we would end up with.

On our wedding day we are all asked the question, “Will you love, honor, and respect (insert adjective) in sickness and in health, until death do you part?” And while we will end up saying, “I do” the reality in the United States is that nearly half will end up divorcing. We have been raised in a selfish society, to think that just because we want something that we some how deserve to get it. When we think we have found it, we hold on to it until we realize it wasn’t really what we wanted. But after all, don’t we always get what we wanted in the end? Are we just simply too blinded by our selfishness to accept whom the gods separated us from in the beginning? This is a lesson we all need to learn, to be able to answer the call and to love the person who we love and not expect them to be something they can never be. Going back to the example used throughout, there are certain people out there who cannot unlearn their habits such as one who is mentally disabled, as Adam is. What we must do is learn that regardless of whether or not a person can express their love for us, that we sometimes have to sacrifice ourselves for our own happiness and realize that sometimes love means having to care for another.

Published in:  on August 17, 2009 at 1:13 am Comments (4)
Tags: , , , , , , ,

A lesson to be learned

Is it possible for us to learn important lessons from media, such as television, books, movies, or music and it for to be at the same time enjoyable for us to watch, read, or listen to? Or are the two exclusive, something that is enjoyable to watch, read, or listen to can’t possibly be good for us or teach us any lesson. It has been my experience that neither are exclusive to each other, that often times media can be both entertaining, pleasurable and also educational. Yet, these are not readily accessible, instead one has to sincerely look for them because you won’t find these types of things easily. One good place to find such entertaining educational programs is on the television network ABC Family, where they offer a wide variety of shows that both are fun to watch and also teach important lessons. These lessons are not only applicable to the children and young teens that watch the show, but to anyone (including a 24 year old male graduate student.) It has been on this channel that I have found shows that truly provoked me to think; Greek, which is about a group of college students, primarily a brother and sister both in the Greek system, and how they cope with their lives. The second show is The Secret Life of the American Teenager, a catchy show that uses young high school students and puts them into adult situations, yet doesn’t attempt to make them grown up. This is the second time I have devoted my blog to the discussion of the Secret Life, although I have exercised my thoughts through other outlets such as the Internet Movie Database discussion boards.

The last time I provided an synopsis of the show, the characters and the problems that they all face. Today I want to focus in on a situation that is a bit more particular that is important to even adults. The main character Amy is a 15 year old mother after one mistake at band camp with bad boy Ricky left her pregnant even before she started high school. Within the first few weeks of school Amy is asked out by Ben, who is desperately trying to get both a girlfriend and sex. When the cat is finally out of the bag, and everyone in town knows that Amy is pregnant and that Ricky is the father things begin to get interesting.

A slight divergence. The best education a child receives in its life is that education that parents can provide. Parents are instantly connected to their child and it is their responsibility to raise and educate their child from infancy to the age of reason when the child. Because of this,  John Locke puts forth the notion that parents should not be permitted to divorce until all of their children have reached the age of reason and can properly care for themselves. In short, Locke asserts that the best parents for a child are it’s natural parents.

From the start Ben wants to inject himself into the decisions about what Amy will ultimately do with the child even after Amy has chosen to not get an abortion and allow Ricky to have say in what happens to their child. Ben’s position is particular one, because he is playing the part of a step parent. Ricky is the bad guy in Ben’s eyes, he has damaged his beloved Amy long before they had a chance to fall in love. It is the situation we all remember from high school; we become interested in another person and we ultimately find out something about that person. In Ben’s case he doesn’t blame Amy for anything that happened, just like everyone else at school and in town the blame ultimately falls on Ricky. Ben is constantly attempting to separate Ricky from him and Amy, even going so far as to pretend he has any say in the decision process over a child that isn’t even his.

At every junction, Amy blocks Ben’s attempts to interfere in a situation that only involves Ricky and her. Ben is obviously put off by this, claiming that Amy no longer loves him or any other excuse he can devise. When Amy’s baby son, John, is finally born Amy does does everything to keep Ben and also Adrian (Ricky’s sorta girlfriend) away from him. Though her attempts fail finally when Ben finds a way to babysit for Amy while she goes to visit the family of her dad’s ex wife. It is here that it becomes evident that Ben wants to appear to be a responsible, well intending step father for John. As soon as Amy is gone, Ashley (her younger sister) pops in to take care of her nephew for Ben. Ben, like so many before him, ends up showing he doesn’t care as much for his girlfriend’s child as much as he cares for his girlfriend. He puts on the act of making everyone think he truly cares for the child, and maybe on some level he does, but his love for the child is entirely connected to Amy. Just like any other step parent, the love of any children that the spouse may have is connected entirely to the spouse. No true love between parent and child is really ever capable, although it does happen. Remember those old fairy tales by the Brothers Grimm? All of the bad guys were typically step parents, usually of the motherly variety. That’s not to say that all step parents are bad, or that Ben will want to lure John into the woods and cook him for dinner.

However, what it does mean is that as soon as his feelings for Amy begin to fade away he wants really nothing more to do with John. Because of John, Amy and Ricky are drawn closer together because of the shared love over their child. Unlike many other situations, Amy and Ricky never hated each other they simply made a mistake and animosity developed between them over what that mistake has done to their lives. Their relationship, even if it never goes past being parents to their son, will always provide them with a deeper bond than will ever be present between them and their significant others until they have children together; even then it will only match the bond that they have with each other.A prime demonstration of  this is with Amy’s parents, who are divorced at the beginning of season three. Prior to divorcing, George and Anne had sex and she got pregnant. She met another man and initially tried to play as though it was his kid, although always knowing it was George’s. When George finally admits it is most likely his child, Anne’s relationship with the other man unravels quickly; almost as though she was waiting for George to confess. It doesn’t mean that they are getting back together, instead Anne intends to continuing dating and find her “true love.” However, if Amy and Ricky are any demonstration, George and Anne will always be destined to be with each other. Further, because they are still very involved together in each others lives and the lives of their daughters, it will be impossible to find another person to fill the shoes of George for Anne. Like wise, it will be difficult for Amy or Ricky the longer they spend together raising their son together to find someone who else.

The Secret Life of the American Teenager, while a very childish show at times is ultimately highly enlightening and attempts to educate the audience. For younger views, young to mid teenagers, this show can hopefully demonstrate to them the struggles of what it means to be an adult, and mean to be a parent. For young adults and even parents who watch the show with their child(ren), the show reminds us of how life really is. Things aren’t just so cut and dry; just because don’t like people doesn’t mean we aren’t forced to live with them as Ricky and Ben learn. And just because we make mistakes and there are means of fixing those mistakes, doesn’t make them right or the most responsible thing we can do. Ultimately, when children are involved the best thing for us is almost never our own personal self interest, but instead the well being of the children.

Published in:  on August 11, 2009 at 4:32 pm Comments (1)
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

A new kind of show

For most of you it may come as a shock that a male graduate student who spends most of his time blogging about such issues as current affairs, historical importance of events, and philosophy would be interested in the ABC Family show The Secret Life of the American Teenager. Then again, for those who have read my past blogs they can tell I already have written extensively about one other ABC Family hit show, Greek.  While ABC Family is notorious for making campy shows that are obviously attempting to teach some sort of lesson their show The Secret Life of the American Teenager is actually quite smart for a show directed towards a younger audience…or so it would appear at first glance. The show is in it’s third season, and like many shows on air today they network has opted for shortened 12 episode seasons rather than a full 24 episode season. The creator of Seventh Heaven, the former hit on the CW/WB/UPN, Brenda Hampton and employs the use of some incredibly talented unknown and most often teenage actors and actresses. At the same time, the show uses familiar faces such as Molly Ringwald, Mark Derwin and for a while John Schneider.

What strikes me most about the show has been the tackling of major issues not typically found on teen shows, especially considering this show doesn’t attempt to make grown up teenagers. The main premise of the show has been centered around the main character, Amy, as she deals first with being pregnant at 15 and into teenage parenthood.  As a result of focusing on such an issue, the show does discuss the topic at times a little too much; then again its written almost entirely from the prospective of teenagers and what else do most teenagers, especially males, think about? In an extension of the main focus of the show, the issues of Amy’s baby’s father, a 16 year old bad boy named Ricky are laid bare and discussed openly throughout the show.  The show uses main stereotypes for the characters and families who are focused on. There are two nuclear families at the start of the series, Amy’s and Grace’s. Amy’s family is the true nuclear family, two parents with both children being their own. They have their issues like any other family in America, though the husband (George) cheats on his wife (Anne) and of course their daughter Amy is pregnant and only 15. Grace’s family on the other hand is on the surface a very religious (Christian) family who uphold very traditional Christian values such as abstinence.

However, Grace’s family does hold dark sides as does any family. Her mother is the ex wife of George, whom she cheated on before meeting her current husband. Her brother Tom is mentally retarded (Downs Syndrome) and was adopted by Grace and her parents. While Grace initially is fervent in her devotion to the principles of the Christian faith she swears by, her resolve begins to slowly break under the pressures of being in high school, attractive, and a cheerleader. Her on again and off again Jack is the step son of the local minister who originally gets Jack to ask Grace out as a means of keeping her family, and her family’s money (her dad is a doctor) at his church. He too wants to adhere to the principles of his faith, but is distracted like most teenage males by the lures of sex and attractive girls. In their first off again stage, Jack hooks up with the school skank who also happens to be the top of her class, Adrian. Her mother intentionally got pregnant to have someone who would unconditionally love her and then works slavishly as a flight attendant to make sure Adrian has everything she could need or want in life.

This brings us back full circle to Amy, our little 15 year old freshman who had one night at band camp with Ricky who it turns out actually just wanted a little loving from Amy not a relationship like he pretended. The closest Ricky gets to a relationship is with Adrian, who shares his love for no strings sex. Instead, upon finding out she is pregnant Amy attempts to hide it from everyone, sans her two best friends who couldn’t keep a secret if they were deaf, mute and illiterate. So while she is pregnant and her friends are telling the whole school and possibly the whole town, she begins a relationship with fellow freshman Ben who asks her out after his friend Alice says he should. They, or at least he, quickly falls in love with Amy though its unclear from the start if Ben actually loves Amy or if he is simply trying to keep her from leaving him and attempting to gain Ricky. The three of them, Amy, Ricky and Ben will be forever connected by Amy’s pregnancy.

The complex nature of the show doesn’t actually begin to show through until later into the series. At first it would appear to the common observer that the show is nothing more than a flighty teen romantic comedy that lacks any and all depth. By the third season, which is currently airing, the relationship between Ben and Amy is strained by the new responsibilities of motherhood, and Ricky’s apparent desire to be a father to his son. Ben seems to be under the illusion from the start that he somehow should have a say in the life of the unborn child his girlfriend carries. Ricky is initially reluctant to take any interest in his child, namely because of his fear he will end up like his father…a child molester. His fears seem to go away as he pretends to be interested in the pregnancy in order to get with Grace. By entering into the picture, Ricky has trivialized Ben’s opinion about anything involving the baby even more than it started out. Despite being a teenager and only dating Amy for a school year, Ben fits into the motif of the step father. He harbors resentment towards Ricky because of Ricky’s womanizing ways, his popularity, and because he had sex with and impregnated the woman Ben claims to love. Their relationship worsens as Ben becomes jealous of Ricky and begins to pressure Amy into A. having sex with him and B. pushing Ricky out of the picture entirely.

The relationship between Ben and Amy, Amy and Ricky, and Ricky and Ben actually does a great job in presenting an intelligent message to a young audience. Jealousy is common in high school, especially for guys when it comes to competition over a girl. Ben is the unfortunate victim of the worst kind of jealousy because of the past encounters between Ricky and Amy. From the gate Ricky and Ben will never be able to truly be friends, after all in Ben’s mind he and Amy are married (they married illegally at the beginning of season two) and he is the step father of Amy’s son John. All three are forced to deal with jealously in a way that is more common among adults. Its bad enough for a teenage male to be jealous about his contemporary over their past sexual relations with a girl said teenage male likes. But adding into the picture a baby, which Amy ultimately keeps, causes the circumstances of Ben’s jealously to be that of an adult male. Ben is understandably unable to handle the circumstances he unknowingly entered into when he asked Amy out on their first date. Yet, because he is a teenager Ben acts more like the ex husband of a woman who has remarried and has sole custody over their children.

Amy and Ricky are initially distant from each other to the point of open resentment on Amy’s part. Yet as they are thrust together because of their son, by season three Amy and Ricky are spending more time together and noticeable changes are seen in the way Ricky behaves. Ricky is quickly becoming for her what Ben is unable to be, a mature adult partner. Amy’s relationship with Ben is focused on Ben’s love and interest in Amy and her love and interest in Ben; the fact she has a child is insignificant in Ben’s eyes. Amy and Ricky’s relationship is all about their son John. Ben’s jealously and inadequacy as a care provider for Amy and her son drive Amy away from him and closer to Ricky who has made significant steps to help provide for his son. While Ben comes from a wealthy family, the existence of John is of little consequence to him. He is unable to realize that Amy and John are eternally connected to each other as mother and child; an unbreakable bond. His inability to cope with Ricky’s participation in John’s life, and therefore Amy’s, makes it impossible for him to be the correct partner for Amy. Amy has reluctantly taken on the role of motherhood and as a result like any other mother, her needs are the same as her son’s. When Ben is unable to provide for the needs of John, he is unable to provide for Amy’s needs and vice versa.

Meanwhile with the cast of characters,  Grace’s struggle between what she believes to be right and what the world of high school believes to be right is intense. Her on again and off again relationship with Jack centers around the issue of her willingness to have sex, which is a slow transition as she becomes friends with Ricky and Adrian and eventually as her mother gives her birth control pills. Eventually, Grace comes to the conclusions that in order to keep Jack as her boyfriend she must sleep with him (this is because he has cheated on her in the past because of her unwillingness to have sex) and also that her love for Jack, and commitment to be with him is mature enough that sexual relationships are acceptable because they are no different than as if they were married.

Adrian on the other hand, has always been a sexually active girl. The absence of any true parental authority in her life, and any true source of love has resulted in her willingness to sleep with any guy. The reintroduction of her birth father into her life as undesired results on her life, as does her friendship with Grace. Since she has a parental authority, which she yearns for until she gets it, and a source of unconditional love her sexual activities become more meaningless than before. She has admitted to herself that she loves Ricky, which is why she is so willing to let him walk all over her it would appear.  Surprisingly, as she comes to unconsciously understand how meaningless her sex life is, she encourages Grace to uphold her own vow of abstinence until marriage. Yet despite her realization that sex isn’t a necessary part of her life, she continues to seek it out either because she is an addict or thinks that she has been a slut for so long that despite knowing it to be wrong, she cannot stop.

Published in:  on August 8, 2009 at 3:13 am Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Glorious Day

Only a few days before America celebrates the 233 anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence, the Supreme Court of the United States today has made a glorious decision. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 attempted to make equality a reality in the United States by, among other things, requiring businesses and schools to adopt affirmative action. Affirmative action is a process by which schools and business accept and hire individuals based first on a racial and sex quota of individuals attending their school or working for their business. Specifically, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act mandates quotas for minorities in businesses and schools.

Today, the Supreme Court of the United States in keeping with the second part of the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” The City of New Haven failed to uphold the inalienable rights of 19 white and 1 hispanic firefighters by tossing out the scores on a promotion test because too few minorities passed the test. A lower court, which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is currently a member of, ruled earlier in the year that the City of New Haven had not done anything wrong by denying the promotion of 19 whites and 1 hispanic firefighters.

Today the Supreme Court over turned the lower court’s decision, by declaring that the City of New Haven violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion of the Court, which voted 5-4 to overturn the lower court’s decision. Justices Scalia and Alito wrote concurring opinions. Justice Scalia in particular wrote that this act itself should have been ruled unconstitutional. According to Scalia, “Intentional discrimination is still occurring, just one step up the chain. Government compulsionof such design would therefore seemingly violate equal protection principles.”(557 U.S. 08-328) In specific, Scalia has raised the question as to whether or not anti-discrimination laws, which call for the discrimination against non disadvantaged races, sexes, and nationalities is in fact a violation of the equal protection clause of 5th and 14th Amendments.

Today’s decision has set down that it is not ethical for a business to discriminate against whites simply in order to insure

Published in:  on June 29, 2009 at 1:26 pm Leave a Comment
Tags: , , , , , , ,

Further thoughts on disunity

Argument taken from the Federalist Papers, along with certain questions and paraphrases.

Quote from Stephen Hopkins found in American Political Writings of the Founding Era, volume 1.

One of the fundamental causes of the Constitutional convention was the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation from reigning in the power of the states.  The primary goal of the United States Constitution is to control the passions of the people, specifically in regards to situations that arise causing an outburst of a single opinion among the people (i.e. during the period of Confederation, the people of the various states were able to convince their state legislatures to make laws affecting contracts, effectively retarding the power of contracts between persons.) Our Constitution does this first be erecting a Republican government.

Our Republican government, “guard[s] one part of the society against the injustice of the other party.” It is not be to implied that our Federal government is beyond injustice, however history has shown that the States are more likely to be unjust.  The Constitution of the United States, therefore, creates to opposing governments; one Federal and the other State. The Federal government is divided into three branches, with the most powerful being divided into two. The States are divided into three branches, and in most cases the most power being divided into two houses. The State governments also share their power with the local community governments. This is all in an attempt to curtail the possibility of an unjust government. It is also an attempt to curtail the tyranny of the people.

Through the style of our republican government, we are able to create barriers to protect against an unjust ruler. The second way our Republican government protects against the infringements of persons, and State and the Federal governments is through the size of our Republic. In history there has never been a Republic the size of the United States. A severe defect in the State governments, which necessitate the Federal government as a protector, is the closeness of the people to their legislatures. The State governments are too unstable because of how close the people are to their government. In order to keep their job, State legislatures act according to the demands of their constituents rather than according to the principles of justice.

The rule of factions is what has brought down republics throughout history and is what dismantled the American Confederacy. The problem of faction is the main focus of the American Constitution. In order to curtail factions there must be barriers placed to prevent their power from infiltrating the chambers of government. The first step to achieving this has been in the creation of two governments: State and Federal. The second step has been in the creation of an extended Republic, which allows for a multitude of opinions. This is achieved through the House of Representatives, which has traditionally (up until the passage of the 17th Amendment) been the direct representative of the people to the National legislature. They serve a short two year term and are eligible for reelection infinite times. All laws must be passed by them and by the Senate, which is indirectly elected by the people through the State legislatures (until the 17th amendment was passed.) Faction is dismantled in the chambers of our Congress as the multitude of opinions are presented by the House of Representatives and are filtered through the Senators who are further away from the influences of the passions of the people.

This has been dismantled through the adoption of direct election of Senators, but can be restored through the repeal of the same. The individual States are unable to protect against minority and majority factions, which make them the least able to protect the rights and liberties of the people. As was evident in the period leading up to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, the States were impotent in protecting justice in particular regards to contracts. The people held too much sway over their elected officials, resulting in the harming of the rights of the minority. Only through a Union, with a Federal government at the head, of the States can the defects of the State constitutions be repaired.

The rights of minority interests in the Federal government are upheld along side those interests of others. By extending the Republic from sea to sea, we have achieved in making all opinions and interests minority and only those that obtain a majority of proponents are made law. The aim of the Federal government is not to create a minority rule in the United States, but rather to represent only those interests shared by the majority of persons. It is left to the States, as small Republics, to represent the interests of the minority. Within small Republics minority factions are able to wield some power within the government. It is the main objective of the Federal government to entertain the interests of all parties, and it is given to the States to entertain the interests of their citizens.  By entertaining all interests, the Federal government protects the rights of minorities by permitting them to exist whereas without the Federal government there is a greater chance that the minority opinions will not be heard. Which is why during the periods of Confederation, individuals unable to pay their debts and uphold their contracts were able to persuade their State legislature to nullify their contract and harming a minority party.

A third argument against secession will be brought forth next. I close with the words of Stephen Hopkins, “These, with all other matters of a general nature, it is absolutely necessary should have a general power to direct them, some supreme and overruling authority with power to make laws and form regulations for the good of all, and to compel their execution and observation.”

Published in:  on May 14, 2009 at 3:49 pm Comments (8)
Tags: , , , , , ,
« Older Entries