Equal Rights

"What, to the American slave, is your 4th of July? I answer: a day that reveals to him, more than all other days in the year, the gross injustice and cruelly to which he is the constant victim. To him, your celebration is a sham; your boasted liberty, an unholy license; your national greatness, swelling vanity; your sounds of rejoicing are empty and heartless; your denunciations of tyrants, brass fronted impudence; your shouts of liberty and equality, hollow mockery; your prayers and hymns, your sermons and thanksgivings, with all your religious parade, and solemnity, are, to him, mere bombast, fraud, deception, impiety, and hypocrisy - a thin veil to cover up crimes which would disgrace a nation of savages. There is not a nation on the earth guilty of practices, more shocking and bloody, than are the people of these United States, at this very hour".


Frederick Douglass


Every word of Frederick Douglass' speech in "What to the Slave is the Fourth of July” speaks volumes to me. His speech reflects that the patriotism that Americans celebrate on the Fourth of July is not a prideful event that everyone can relate to, especially people that were enslaved. It is a constant reminder that they were excluded from natural human rights and basic civil liberties. It is a reminder that there is separation in classification and that above all they were considered inferior to elites that only differed in the color of their skin. It is a mockery to people that were part of society and treated as though they were objects instead of human beings. The Declaration of Independence states that "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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness". Where was equality when human beings were labeled, beaten, involuntarily forced to work and sometimes even killed? The elites that were slave owners were a form of government that stripped people of their unalienable rights, where was justice then? It would be fair to say that this document was created in a time when inequalities existed and social justice was non-existent. It would be fair to say that a true American would not take this declaration to heart if they understood the damage caused by slavery.

Group Size and Group Behavior

"When the number of participants is large, the typical participant will know that his own efforts will probably not make much of a difference to the outcome, and that he will be affected by the meeting's decision in much the same way no matter how much or how little effort he puts into studying the issue".
Mancur Olson

To some degree I believe that a much smaller group can make effective decisions and come to a solution to a problem faster than a larger group. Especially when it comes to politics, it would be nearly impossible to make a decision if everyone in society had to participate in the decision making. People do not share the same interest, and too many opinions will slow down the process of coming to a solution- even if the solution is not right. Smaller groups does not guarantee that everyone's voice will be heard. It comes back to the majority vs. the minorities. Not all decisions made by larger groups based on vote necessarily means it is the "right decision". I chose this particular piece of the reading because it does allow me to think of Madison's fear of larger groups creating more factions but it also allows me to think of John Stuart Mill in his piece about Liberties. I would hope that people don't shy away from participating in a movement because they think that their opinions or participation would not make a difference. However, it is something that many people feel on a regular basis, people are not always ready to be part of a movement because their attendance would not make a difference on the outcome or bottom line of the decision.

Gerrymandering

The process of re-drawing district lines to give an advantage to one party over another is called "gerrymandering".




By Christopher Ingraham

Christopher Ingraham

I chose this particular line of the article, because it defines gerrymandering in it's simplest terms. The definition may seem simple, but gerrymandering complicates our government on a drastic level. Gerrymandering usually occurs every ten years, after the Census is taken to update population counts in each of the states, the boundaries of congressional and state legislative districts are then redrawn. The first concern is that it can cause disproportionate representation, because population determines the number of representative needed for that state. Also, people move around every day and migrate to different states all the time, so the statistics recorded are never really accurate. The districts are not always drawn equally or to make any sense. It has created a disadvantage because it allows one party to maintain control or have power over the other.. This is exactly the issue John Stuart Mill brings up in Civil Liberties. The majority overrules the minorities and the ugly truth is not all the decisions or practices incorporated by a majority is the right way to go. You cannot dismiss ideas without exactly hearing it. Gerrymandering can make it impossible for a party to carry out their ideas.  

Supreme Court - Loving v. Virginia

In 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia. The Lovings returned to Virginia shortly thereafter. The couple was then charged with violating the state's antimiscegenation statute, which banned inter-racial marriages. The Lovings were found guilty and sentenced to a year in jail (the trial judge agreed to suspend the sentence if the Lovings would leave Virginia and not return for 25 years).


"The Court also held that the Virginia law violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Under our Constitution," wrote Chief Justice Earl Warren, "the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual, and cannot be infringed by the State."

Since the establishment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Courts have found a way to apply the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. The Fourteenth Amendment states that “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Although the Fourteenth Amendment ensures that certain rights are protected against state laws, the Supreme Court has also made clear that certain rights cannot be limited by a state law. In certain cases the court will selectively incorporate and make a decision on what the state can and cannot do by using the justification of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I can agree with this process to a certain degree because there are some cases that has substantial effect on society and people are facing injustices that they should not face like Mildred Jeter and Richard Loving. No one should have to move from their homes to avoid going to prison because they are in a bi-racial relationship. The only troubling thing about the power of Judicial Review is that the law heavily rest on the opinions and interpretation of these judges. Nothing is set in stone when it comes to our judicial system, because it always changes with time and interpretation.

The law can be bias sometimes and depending on the case or the circumstances it does not always protect the rights of a citizen like in the case of Gonzales v. Raich (2005). Federal Government destroyed home grown marijuana that Raich needed for medical use, because it would affect interstate commerce. Raich felt that the ruling violated her 9th and 10th amendment, so to a certain degree Judicial Review protects citizens from injustices.

4/9 The Presidency

"The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough -- more than enough -- of war and hate and oppression".
-President John F. Kennedy




President Kennedy in this particular part of his Inaugural Speech is reminding the public that the United States is tired of war. It is clear that at this point in time in history that American did not want war and had enough of war, hate and oppression. President Kennedy was also a war hero during WWII and knew first hand the detrimental effect war had on our country. I chose this quote because I think that is exactly how most Americans feel today. At this point in our lives we want to find better ways around economic, political and social problems. We do not want to start a war amongst each other or with our neighboring countries. The United States has a long history of fighting for equality and trying to build a strong society. Too many people have lost their lives for rights we take for granted now. There has to be a point when people must come together and come to common grounds. There has to be a point where people find solutions without taking drastic measures by treating others unjust or by creating new forms of oppression. I feel that we have more resources and have advanced to a higher level than our former leaders. I feel that we have what it takes to create a more civilized union and that we should stop pretending that the issue here has no solution. Our new president's approach is far from John F. Kennedy's approach. Needless to say, many people disagree on most of his plans for our country. I will not say his approach is always wrong, but it's not always in the best interest of the country when he allows his opinions to govern his decision. The fact is his opinion should not govern his leadership because the president represents an entire country and not just himself as an individual.

Democracy and Authoritarianism-Richard Wolin, “Our Prophet of Deceit,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, (Oct. 2016)

"By depicting the current situation in the blackest of all possible terms, the agitator heightens the despair of his listeners to the point where they are putty in his hands".


- Richard Wolin, “Our Prophet of Deceit,”


This particular quote describes the first step an authoritarian takes when he/she is trying to gain the trust of the people he/she can easily influence.


I chose this quote, because I believed it is definitely something America witnessed during the presidency campaign in 2016. Many people were skeptical about the election and felt that both Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton were not very good candidates to choose from, many people felt that there was no way a woman can run the country and many people felt that Trump would be good for the economical crisis America was facing. All politicians try to influence their constituents during any election, but the approach Donald Trump takes really depicts the characteristics of a dictator. He makes it seem as though the solution to all America's problem is immigration. The economy is doing poor, schools are not properly funded, street violence, homelessness, infrastructure is all blamed on immigration. After the attack of the twin towers, it definitely makes the topic easier to target during an election. People are still afraid and still believe that immigration is the underlying issue of their post traumatic stress disorder. Terrorism is typically tied to foreigners, although an American is also equally capable of being a terrorist. Trump can speak about many different issues America is facing and promise to make America great again but his solution is vague.... He is the solution. Trump wants to govern and take away political freedoms that America has fundamentally built in society to make us function as a democracy. Our current situation will always seems really bad, but there are other countries that are really suffering in other ways because it's citizens allowed an authoritarian leader to take over. Russia and Cuba are two great examples, because there are people that fear defending legitimate rights, individualism and are stuck in a systematic government that constantly violates people’s privacy. If America falls victim to Trump or for that matter any leader that feels that excluding people or categories people is a recipe for disaster. American's forget history and the 13 colonies were established to escape tyranny... Why allow history to repeat itself?

Civil Disobedience and the Fight for Inclusion

"The history of mankind is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations on the part of man toward woman, having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over her. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world".


- Elizabeth Cady Stanton


The entire article contributed to the movement of women's right, however this particular quote in the declaration of sentiments states that throughout history women have been oppressed by men. The quote follows a list of facts that can support this statement.


I chose this quote, because even today women are still oppressed by men. There are many other examples that can be used to support this quote even in 2019. Women are oppressed in the workplace, statistic show that women are paid less to do the same job a man can do. Women are underrepresented in government. Women overall are at a greater risk of rape and domestic violence. Women are scrutinized on social media and tied to a stigma if they decide to dress a certain way. I hate to speak about certain topics in politics, especially the presidential elections, but there were many people that did not feel Hilary Clinton would be a good president because she is a woman. On television, women are depicted as sexual objects even to sell a bottle of shampoo. Women have progressed since 1848, but the fact of the matter is that the tyranny still exist.