The Argument Review

"The American Creation" by Joseph Ellis is a book written about the constitution and the wars. Chapter 3 titled "The Argument" talks about the act of arguing and compromise, and how they basis of our constitution. 

The Founding Fathers, in the midst of writing the constitution, seemed to think they couldn't agree on anything. It seemed like all they did was argue and bicker, which had never happened much before. The only person that knew it was constructive was James Madison. Madison realized the arguing is what they needed. The best efforts and ideas came from those arguments. 

The articles of Confederation was a main part of the arguing. Madison realized how they were failing so he wanted to make a change. Thus sparked the idea of the constitution. He wrote it and presented it to George Washington himself. The two of them stormed into a meeting and bestowed it to the Philadelphia Convention. The convention thought it was rubbish, but after reading through it sparked a couple people's minds. "For it made argument itself the answer by creating a framework in which federal and state authority engaged in an ongoing negotiation for supremacy, thereby making the constitution, like history itself, an argument without end" as said on page 91. Many of the people disagreed with what the constitution said, claiming that the constitution was to similar to Britain, in the fact that they wanted a stronger federal government. "Madison shifted his ground to become chief advocate for the very argument he opposed in Philadelphia: namely, that the Constitution institutionalized a unique form of shared sovereignty" (page 118). 

One person that stuck by Madison's side was Alexander Hamilton. They wrote "Publius", which was a collection of 85 essays, together with an assistants from John Jay. Another instance was, "Hamilton and Madison were forced by the political exigencies of the moment to frame their argument on behalf of the Constitution." Madison wanted a superior federal government rather than state. Hamilton was more of a nationalist and didn't want states at all. "they embraced the very ambiguity they had condemned as a fatal weakness of the Constitution as its central strength.   

James Madison also came to the conclusion that we needed a way to get rid of the big majority. The majority is a giant group of people that believed the same way and took chances away from others, they were often involved with interest groups. Now Madison must have seen insane for believing that we needed to split this up. It's what the people want right? Well the people aren't always right. I mean no we can see what happened in World War 2 with the Nazis. So in order to break up the majority he wanted to create thousands of interest groups. So in doing that he gave other people a chance. 

The government created two divisions. The Federalists and the AntiFederalists. The Federalists believed in power to the Federal Government. The AntiFederalists believed in modern revisions of the Articles of Confederation, but still more power to the states. Madison believe their would be no middle ground between the two matters. He was quoted saying its a "take it or leave it" situation. The AntiFederalists believed it was to close to Britain. They also had a great distrust for anyone that tried to take the rights away from the people. The only problem with this is that corruption is almost inevitable. 

Presidential Debate

The First Presidential Debate between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump touched on three topics: achieving prosperity, America's direction and securing America.

Achieving Prosperity:

When asked about how we can maintain job growth Clinton says that we need to build an economy that fits all not just those at the top. She wants to promote small business, raising the minimum wage, equal rages between men and women. Close the corporate loopholes which in return would reduce college debt. Trump would rather keep the jobs in America rather than Mexico, China, etc. Trump agrees with Clinton but admits they will probably disagree with numbers. He wants to reduce taxes from 35% to 15% but keep the trade system. Clinton disagrees with the trickle down economics and focus more on education and other things. Trump believes that closing off those things with other countries it could help with 20 trillion dollar debt. Big business is leaving but if they try to come back in they should be taxed. Clinton goes on a rant about solar energies that create jobs. While they did that in the past and it failed and we lost money. Trump believes the Clinton will worsen the debt and we need to keep our jobs. Clinton wants to enforce the trade deals which would therefore create jobs. Both Trump and Clinton debate on HAFTA. Trump said it brought down percentages and Clinton believes it was amazing.

694 million dollars income for the past year from Trump's company. He believes America needs the mind of a business man so he can get them out of debt. Trump says that when Clinton releases the 33,000 deleted emails from Clinton then he will release his tax returns. Clinton claims Trump hasn't paid his federal taxes since he opened a casino. Clinton also claims that Trump owes people money and is trying to hide it. According to Trump we are 20 trillion dollars in debt but 6 trillion dollars was sent to the middle east. Trump says that money should've gone towards the debt or even schools or roads etc. Clinton believes a business man can't do government. Trump admits to running the law and that Clinton is lying and he has paid 10,000+ people.

America's Direction:

Clinton wants to reduce gun violence, make sure police officers get the correct training and build trust. Trump wants to bring back law and order. Trump also touches the topic of immigrants in gangs and their violence he wants to protect the inner cities. In his opinion African American communities have been desecrated by crime. Trump wants more police and a better community relation. Clinton believes you need more than law and order you need a plan. Clinton also wants the people on the terror watch list to not be able to buy guns. She retouches and says you need to have a community that trusts each other. Trump touches on the matter that around election time (now) candidates will talk a big game and not go through with it. He wants to control the border. Hillary brings up a case from 1978 that involved Trump and racism and Trump declares that it was settled a long time ago and he was not the only one sued. Clinton touches on hackers and how they steal information and try to bring down the country. Trump claims he has about 200 admirals and generals by his side. Trump also states how Clinton keeps saying Russia hacked it but she doesn't really know according to Trump and that they are not doing the things they should be doing.

Securing America

Terrorism comes into play and Trump doesn't agree with the way Clinton and Obama exited the war incorrectly which then created ISIS. Clinton believes we need to stay in touch with these nations so we can get a true insight on the countries. Trump makes a strong accusation an says Clinton was in office when ISIS was first formed and now that it's in over 30 countries she decides to take it and she can't. Trump claims that the nuclear agreement made with Iran should be changed. Clinton wants to stick to our allies and not make any changes.

My Opinion:

I agree with many things that both candidate's said and I also disagree. In this election I personally don't like either but if I had to vote for someone I'd choose Trump. Hillary bagged and bagged on Trump but couldn't defend herself. When it comes to the terrorism thing she stated in an earlier discussion that she wants to basically foster people from the middle east. I don't agree with that but that's not where it stopped. She doesn't want to give them a simple background check first. Granted not all will be terrorists but you still need to give your people assurance. Another thing Hillary discussed was that Russia hacked us. She bagged and bagged on Russia. I agree with Trump's response but also people seem to forget she sold uranium to the Russians. Trump is for the trickle down economy and that I do not agree with. Considering that was a big cause of the Great Depression. However, I know Trump is a business man so I believe he knows a thing or two about money.  

Murder Trials

Recently, I heard in my local news this story about a murder case from a while ago. This man raped a young boy and when he saw a cop, on patrol in the area, he shot the young boy. Very tragic scenario where the parents had given up hope of ever finding the killer. The police arrested and he went through a trial where he got a 20 year sentence. But why? You would think that if you kill someone you should get life in prison or the death penalty, it's what you would deserve. If you take someone's life your life should be taken as well, whether that be life in prison or, if the crime is that severe, the death penalty. You took away that persons right to live, speak, breath, therefore you should have some of your rights taken. Especially in this case, there was a boy who was around the age of 7. 7! This man took the boys life with the simple push of a trigger. Why couldn't we take most of his life? 20 years is no where near enough compared to what he took from that boy. That boy would have possibly had an amazing life. But because of this man his life got cut short. That boy could've had 60 years of life and we're only sentencing the killer to 20? He took the boys life so we should take his. Multiple people believe this.

There's plenty of misconceptions in not only this case but tons of others. The common belief is that if there is no "aggravating factors" (rape, arson, robbery, etc.) then they get 20-25 years. However, in this case and much others, it includes the "aggravating factors". So why was there such a short penalty?

The death penalty is determined by the illegal actions one committed that is punishable by death. Some of this actions include: terrorism, drug trafficking, attempting to kill a witness or legal enforcer, and much more. While deciding the prosecutors fate, one of two things could happen. Death Penalty or "life" in prison. If there is even one vote against death penalty than that person will get life. 

On average, 16,238 murders are committed each year. There is plenty of room for some leeway. If you look back on history you will see people getting hung, guillotined, and even burned at the stake if you killed, raped, or anything of that nature. Now I'm not saying if you murder someone you deserve to your head chopped off by a giant blade. 

What I'm saying is that you deserve what you did to that person. Inevitably, the ultimate judgment is up to God. In James 2:11-12 it says, "For he said, 'do not commit adultery,' also said, 'do not commit murder'. Now if you have not committed adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. So speak and so act to those who are to be judged by the law of liberty". 

Teenage Toughness

These days teenagers get the reputation that we're "to emotional" or "to soft". The generation before was raised to be masculine and tough so the make fun of this generation. 

However, here's the argument. The generation before is the parents of today's generation, correct? So if they don't like today's teens why don't they raise their kids the way they want? 
The previous generation in all their "toughness" are in reality not all that tough. They say their like armor, always protected. However they have put up walls and like to disregard other people, including help. In the article Making Modern Toughness by David Brooks it states, "And then many people turned to alcohol to help them feel anything at all". Meaning people from the previous generation are not that though, in hindsight, they don't address the issue they just stop thinking about it. The generation today has been resilient and according to history those are the people we look up to the most. Albert Einstein, Vincent Van Gogh, Michael Jordan, and that's just to name a few. Today's generation has learned to take a major hit and still bounce back. Another great point the article said was,"There are moments when they feel swallowed up by fear. They feel and live in the pain. But they work through it and their ardent yearning is still there, and they return to an altered wholeness." Referring to the younger generation. Take a look at Mother Teresa. She may have not been consistent in life but God found it consistent enough for him. You cannot change the people around us. You accept people for who them. Previous generation or today's generation, we should all be accepted. Being raised in a tough home or being raised in a sheltered home, the world will progress either way.