The Logic of Collective Action

"Even if the member of a large group were to neglect his own interests entirely, he still would not rationally contribute toward the provision of any collective or public good, since his own contribution would not be perceptible."

If a member of a large group completely ignores his or her interests, and doesn't partake in their group's decision making process, that member is less likely to show reasonable involvement towards the outcome, as that member's efforts, or lack thereof, would've (supposedly) gone unnoticed either way.

I chose this quote because I find it shameful that there are such selfish members who don't care to contribute  and play an active role in their group's decisions simply because they had no interest to begin with. Such members should have their memberships revoked immediately, and should be considered the weak links or dead weight.

Marbury v. Madison

"The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief of Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams's term as president." 

After further "judicial review", a decision was made to deny Marbury's writ of mandamus because it was deemed unconstitutional (Marshall). According to article 3 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court does not have authority to issue writs, nor does Congress have authority to add on to the Supreme Court's original jurisdiction (Marshall). 

I chose the Marbury v. Madison case because of the influence it had other court cases that followed. Through the "judicial review" process, this case paved the way for other important issues such as freedom of speech and civil rights to get the necessary attention and representation that they deserved.

"Another Stab at the Constitution."

We Need Term Limits for Judges

“Eighteen years would mean that a justice’s tenure would be long enough to ensure independence from political patronage. As important, it would be short enough to ensure that we remain a country of laws and not of men (Professor Jamal Greene).”

In his quote, Professor of law at Columbia Law School, Jamal Greene suggests that Supreme Court Judges should receive term limits. He believes that Judges should serve “nonrenewable 18 year terms” instead of serving for many decades.  This will make certain that the length of their terms will not be influenced or decided upon an appointed executive power (Greene).  In addition, it will make certain that our country continues to be governed by the laws of its own land and not of men (Greene).

I chose this quote because I agree with Professor Greene’s view points on setting term limits for Supreme Court Judges. I also agree that they should be freed from any political restraints that may affect the length of their terms. A Judge’s term shouldn't be tenured, nor dependent on “political patronage” (Greene). Each Supreme Court judge should know their exact term length and respectfully hold their positions until their terms have been completed.  Furthermore, they should hold their respectable positions, without removal, unless there was proof of impeachment on their behalf.

The Federalist #51

“But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others (James Madison).”

James Madison asserts that those with administrative power should be guided by the right principles; methods and reasoning that reject an intrusive ideology. This would potentially minimize the amount of factions and encroachments that take place with rival branch members.  In addition, this would add a great deal of security and balance to both the majority and minority members.  James Madison believed that no branch member should abuse their authority, let alone, act on selfishness. Instead, they should support the very people they serve.

I chose this quote because I respect Madison's thoughts on power. He seemed to act in complete fairness, and with good intent. I believe that power should be exercised with proper precaution, and agree that no one should abuse it nor intrude on others in the same circle of power. Furthermore, those in power should set aside their own personal preferences and not neglect their own respectable citizens.

The Federalist #10

"Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority (James Madison)."


James Madison explains that many respectable citizens, with good moral values, had been complaining about the unfairness and instability of their own governments. A large part of the problem was due to the conflicts between rival parties who quite often ignored public interests.  These rival parties had been placing their own personal interests in front of their own citizens. In addition, the government had allowed the "majority" to overrule the "minority" through factions and encroachments (Madison). This was a violation of rights and rules of justice towards the minority (Madison).


I chose this quote because I can appreciate Madison's thoughts and concerns about the imbalance of power, and lack of governmental support towards public interest. He seemed to have advocated well for the respectable citizens and minority branches. It's a shame that their rights were being violated through the conflicts of rival parties.  However, It's good to know that there was someone standing up for our equality back in the late 1700's.  James Madison, a true man of equilibrium.

What I saw in America

"The reaction of his senses and superficial habits of mind against something new, and to him abnormal, is a perfectly healthy reaction. But the mind which imagines that mere unfamiliarity can possibly prove anything about inferiority is a very inadequate mind"(GK Chesterton).


In this quote, Chesterton explains that it's acceptable to feel apprehensive towards something deem unusual. However, if something appears unusual, and you think you can debate on its lower base,then your mind lacks sufficiency.  In other words, if you don't understand a certain policy and/or the reasons behind that policy, it's totally ok to feel uncertainty and skepticism towards it. Nonetheless, it will be ideal to work your mind in learning as much as possible about that policy before considering to raise a legitimate argument towards it. 


I chose this quote because I can relate to it to some degree on both ends.  In addition, I knew this quote would challenge me to reflect and analyze my mind and how to improve it. Simply put, knowledge is power.  I've been the observer, and I've also been the one to act naive and stubborn towards a debate.  In either case, I truly rather be the observer, but most importantly, I much rather be the observer and the one who works his mind adequately.

Bachrach

"As the foregoing quotations make clear, the pluralists concentrate their attention, not upon the sources of power, but its exercise."


This means that pluralists are basing their research of power solely on how power is being utilized, rather than those who have the power. Pluralist researchers closely monitor the behaviors and involvements of the most active people in power, as they form and reach "key" decisions. This observation allows pluralists to identify those who are exercising more power than others in the same circle. Those who are least active in "key" decision making tend to participate more in "routine" decisions. Key decisions are of more significance as oppose to routine decisions, which are least important.


I think that the "pluralists" strategy is a good way to measure power at work. It allows us to learn about what goes on in the minds of people in power as they make important decisions. With that information, we can perhaps figure out what are their true motives. Are they for the people? Are the acting in good faith? Or, are they simply power tripping?