In Lee Hamilton’s article entitled The Case for Congress, Hamilton analyzes the criticisms Congress often receives from Citizens of the United States. He points out the negative traits that are often associated with those serving in Congress such as personal scandals, immoral lobbying, and greed. In reality, Hamilton expresses, congressmen are not the monsters that the media oftentimes portrays them to be. This article is not justifying all acts carried out by Congress, but simply identifies positive things that the men and women serving in the United States Congress do in order to help their constituents.
Hamilton has several strong arguments in this article. First, Hamilton points out that the American people are often only exposed to the negative things that occur within the lives of congress members. He exemplifies this statement in the first paragraph of the article when he writes about the death of Wilbur Mills. He states that when the news anchor announced Mills’s death, he did so by bringing up a personal scandal Mills was involved with earlier in his life. This airing of Congress’s “dirty laundry” impacts how the American people view not only Congress, but also the whole U.S. Government.
…show more content…
The use of these sources provides proof that Hamilton’s arguments are, in fact, reliable. Hamilton uses an outside source almost everytime he introduces a new opinion. When arguing an opinion as controversial as the one discussed in this article, it is necessary to include support from respectable people such as scholars or leaders. Hamilton uses quotes from people such as the former Speaker of the House Sam Rayburn, and former U.S. President Thomas Jefferson. Using sources of a high academic and social standing that further reinforces one’s
The excerpt “Congress: The Electoral Connection” written by David Mayhew centers around the fundamental arguments that discusses how members of congress are self-interested for reelection. Mayhew further elaborates on his idea by discussing the electoral activities that congress members devote their time into and resource from, which are advertising, credit-claiming, and position taking. Mayhew’s excerpt further examines the framework in how congress operates which contributes to the explanation of how and why congress partakes in the certain electoral activities.
·The proposed band would raise $10 million through a public stock offering. The Treasury would hold one fifth of the stock and name one fifth of the directors, but four fifths of the control would fall to private hands. Private investors could purchase shares by paying for three quarters of their value in government bonds. In this way, the bank would capture a significant portion of the recently funded debt and make it available for loans; it would also receive a substantial and steady flow of interest payments for the Treasury. Anyone buying shares under these circumstances had little chance of loosing money.
The Federalist paper # 68 was written with the intent of explaining the process by which we elect the President of the United States, also the views of the people in regards to the election of the President, as well as the House of Representative’s responsibility in electing the President.
Members of congress have three specific goals. The one that seems to be the most important
What motivates members of Congress to act the way they do? Mayhew would argue in Congress: The Electoral Connection that members of Congress are ‘’single-minded re-election seekers’’ and that re-election is their one and only goal. Whilst the assumption that all members of Congress are ‘‘single-minded re-election seekers’’ does go some distance in analysing the motives behind members of Congress, the reading fails to take into account the other key goals of members of Congress. Other goals include good policy and future career positions. It is important to remember that the achievement of both re-election and other goals are not exclusive, members of Congress often are motivated by more than one goal.
In Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton argued that the Judicial Branch is the “least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution" and that it is “beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power” since it has “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” [*] While it is true that Hamilton wrote the Federalist Papers as propaganda to garner support for the Constitution by convincing New Yorkers that it would not take away their rights and liberties, it is also true that Article III of the Constitution was deliberately vague about the powers of the Judicial Branch to allow future generations to decide what exactly those powers should be. In the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, the Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Marshall, established the Court’s power of judicial review. However, as Jill Lepore, Harvard professor of American History, argued, “This was such an astonishing thing to do that the Court didn’t declare another federal law unconstitutional for fifty-four years” after declaring the Judicial Act of 1789 unconstitutional in Marbury v. Madison. [*Jill Lepore] Alexander Hamilton was incorrect in his assertion that the Judicial Branch is the least dangerous to political rights and the weakest of the three government branches because judicial review has made the Supreme Court more powerful than he had anticipated. From 1803 to today, the controversial practice of judicial activism in the Supreme Court has grown—as exemplified by the differing decisions in Minor v. Happersett and United States v. Virginia—which, in effect, has increased the power of the Supreme Court to boundaries beyond those that Alexander Hamilton stated in Federalist 78.
Hamilton approaches the people through this letter by pin pointing several key issues of worry and using his extensive knowledge and background to convince a new nation that they should see in favor of a new Constitution.
“It’s not tyranny we desire; it’s a just, limited, federal government.” Alexander Hamilton. When Hamilton said this he was expressing the way he felt about central government. Hamilton and Jefferson both had very different views on government. Hamilton wanted a strong central government and Jefferson wanted all of the power to belong to the states. Alexander Hamilton’s views on government were better for what the United States would become.
The Second Continental Congress was an organization that started having meetings to make decisions on where to attack the British and how to defend themselves. This foundation was created because it was during the war in Lexington and Concord, so they needed someone to help make their decisions and help decide attack methods. The Congress representatives originally met during the Revolutionary War; their first meeting being on May 10, 1775. The representatives (a person or people sent to represent something) came from 12 of the original 13 colonies.
In the past century, people continued to express an increasingly discontent view of Congress especially true when one looks back before the Clinton Impeachment debacle As the size of the nation and the number of congressman have grown, the congress has come under attack by both public influences and congressman themselves. Yet looking at one congressman's relationship with his or her constituents, it would be hard to believe that this is the branch of government that has come under suspect. In “If Ralph Nader says congress is 'The broken branch,' how come we love our congressman so much?” author Richard F. Fenno, Jr., provides insight into this view and why, through congress coming under fire, constituents still feel positively about there congressmen. Although congress is often criticized, its fine tuned functioning is essential in checking the power of congress without hindering the making of legislation.
Jefferson’s use of strategies and language is ineffective in making his points and persuading readers of his arguments. Using hasty generalization, begging the question, and insulting language in his analysis is a huge flaw which lessens the credibility of his argument and offenses his readers. Jefferson should use other argumentative strategies and prevent himself from using insulting language in order to convince readers of his arguments.
...ilities of Congress is that minorities and factions exist: dissent takes place, not disagreements. Verbal brawls take place rather than actual argumentation, and that is what kills democracy. That is why things never get done.
Stephen Medvic, In Defense of Politicians, discusses why Americans feel that politicians are dishonest. In 2007, a Gallup poll about honesty and ethical standards for occupations, showed that only 12 and 9 percent of people felt that Congressmen and State office holders held high standards, (Medvic p. 2). In addition, Americans tend to like their representatives more than the members of Congress because they view them as actual people. Americans view Congress as a group of politicians who are greedy and not representing their interests, (Medvic p. 4).
Along with his arguments of mental inferiority, Jefferson argues that blacks concede their inferiority through their submissiveness to the slave owners. This argument is met by Walkers’ appeal to the people for action. He states that, “unless we try to refute Mr. Jefferson’s arguments respecting us, we will only establish them” (Walker 18). It is an urgent call for action that urges not only blacks but other abolitionist, to stand up and fight against the stereotypes. He calls for black people to stop being submissive and to stand up for their rights. He also calls on blacks to not allow their oppression to hinder them from attaining as much knowledge as is reachable given their circumstances. He uses Jefferson’s demeaning statements to incite black people to rise up against the injustices being done to them. Through his derogatory statements towards black people, Jefferson, the champion of equality, is inadvertently giving Walker a means to inflame the fight in black people.
No body of government truly has a truly perfect image in the U.S., but in particular is the congress. There are quite a few theories as to why Congress has a bad public image. Congress may have a poor public image but if it weren’t for it’s own members speaking ill of the institution then the image problem could easily be fixed.