1999 Dbq Pros And Cons

The issue at hand is whether or not it is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution to require non-union members to pay agency fees. Agency fees are used to pay for representing employees and negotiating contracts, in addition to lobbying activities to support collective bargaining negotiations or secure advocates. The argument is that because these fees are used for lobbying, it potentially violates the first amendment right to prevent individuals from funding political speech that they disagree with. In addition, the argument is that collective bargaining is also political since wages and benefits that unions negotiate on also come out of the public budget. The other side of the argument is that paying these fees contributes to collective bargaining and prevents individuals from free loading representation by the union in negotiations of wages, breaks, etc. This specific case dealt with the California Teachers association and the role its union plays in funding lobbying that is not supported by certain teachers that are non-union members. Agency shop laws require for dues to be paid as a condition of employment.

Corporate advantage is often times very controversial in government, from funding candidates with money, to swaying the mind of the voters, to making PACs and superPACs; this topic is not at rest with the F.E.C. or other government programs or agencies. In this case we see “Citizens United” ,a special interest group, fight with the F.E.C. about this advantage and the right to set restrictions on spending money for the purpose of engaging in political speech. In a 5-4 decision, Some may think that the court ruled correctly on corporate expenditures ; yet lots of people think that this advantage is corrupt, here’s why.

Madison’s primary focus throughout the beginning of this paper is factions. He holds a deep disdain for them as he thinks that they solely focus on themselves, while hurting other Americans, which is evident in this quote, (“…united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the

“The idea that a corporation is a legal person with constitutional rights is, of course, a controversial one. Some commentators argue that it's bad policy. In my view, however, it is a well-settled principle of US constitutional law and justifiably so. The legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment suggests that Congress substituted the word ''person'' for the word ''citizen'' precisely so that the provisions so affected would protect not just natural persons but also legal persons, such as corporations, from oppressive legislation.”

In “Federalist #10”, Madison describes the dangerous effects that factions can have on Republican government and on its people. Madison defines a faction as a group of citizens who unite under a shared cause, and work against other groups in order to achieve their means. Their means of achieving their goals may achieve adverse effects upon the rights of other citizens. Put in more modern terms, a faction could be reasonably compared to a special-interest group. The sort of faction that most endangers the liberty inherent in United States society are factions that contain a majority of the whole. The weakness of a popular government is its susceptibility to the effects of factions. However, a well-constructed Union provides numerous

However, Madison explained that there are two methods of removing the causes of faction. First, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence. “Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an ailment, without which it instantly expires,” Madison stated. What Madison was trying to say is that liberty and factions go hand in hand. Liberty promotes a faction to grow and get more powerful. In this way, it is better to lessen liberty among individuals to provide for what is best for the overall society. If people are not free to form and express their points of view, then factions could never take hold.

According to Madison, there are two ways to control a faction- remove its cause and then control its effects. As far as removing the causes of the faction, Madison believed this would destroy the liberty which is essential to its existence saying this would be “worse than the disease” and the second would mean giving every citizen the same opinions, passions as well as the same

What Madison is saying is that factions are going to be in a society no matter what. People are going to have different opinions. Factions are always going to exist, and no matter what, the government cannot remove factions because if they do then they are eliminating peoples rights. The constitution protects against this. ?Liberty is to faction, what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be a less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.? This is one reason that the Americans had success (Ziegler 216).

The only way to manage faction is to remove its causes and to control its effects. By removing its causes Madison believes that liberty will be destroyed, or that by giving every citizen the same opinions, passions, and interests, would be impossible because people can never all be the same. Madison wanted the United States to be a republic, a form of democracy in which power is vested in representatives, so there will be a greater number of citizens represented and we will also be able to have more control over the factions effects.

Moreover, Stevens added that, “Corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, and no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their 'personhood' often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.”Invalid source

As long as there is liberty, different opinions and factions will form. Madison simply wishes to establish a system in which the detrimental effects of factions on the whole government are reduced and kept in check. He argues that a pure democracy cannot mitigate the threats of factions and that only a republic can. He believes that a system of government that allow every citizen to vote directly for laws is dangerous as common people's decisions are affected by their self-interest, instead he advocates a different form of government in which citizens elect a small body of representatives who then vote for laws. Madison’s trust in a republic is fueled and bolstered by his lack of confidence in the people’s capacity to make well-informed

The Federalist Papers Number 10 is written by James Madison and explains the necessity of the Constitution to protect our country from factions. A faction is “a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent aggregate interests of the community (Publius, 72).” Publius states that there are two ways to get rid of factions. The first way to eliminate a faction is to take the Liberty away from all of the people in the faction. The other way to cure a faction is to give everyone the same opinion. Both of this solutions are not possible

The question posed by both Madison and the Framers in the 85 “Federalist Papers” and Dahl in his book How Democratic is the American Constitution? is how effective the Constitution is at promoting the ideals of a democracy. For Dahl, there are several issues surrounding the Constitution, from its drafting, to its ideology, to its relevance. By analyzing Dahl’s critiques of the Constitution in terms of the parallels that exist between factions and the two-party system, the issue of unequal representation, and the necessity for the Framers to compromise on their ideals to ratify the Constitution, Dahl defined a clear argument based in his general disapproval for the Constitution. However, by combining Dahl’s critiques with potential rebuttals from the opinions and perspectives of Madison and his fellow Federalists, it is evident that both Dahl and the Framers believed that if the constitution was completely successful, then the lives of the American people would be enhanced. While Dahl believed that the Constitution, ultimately, has not fully protected the rights of all persons, he, like the Framers, focused on the particulars of government that must be improved such that the American life is bettered.

In discussing the Madisonian Dilemma, one must first ask, “How do you give government enough authority to preserve social order and communal values, but not so much that it places unfair and inappropriate limits on individual freedom of choice?” (Bond & Smith 2013, p. 111) This delicate balance between governmental rights and individual freedoms has been a source of much contention and debate. James Madison, a primary framer of the Constitution and author of 30 of the Federalist Papers, believed that the only way this balance of power could be achieved was through controlling the effects of factions through a representative government, fragmenting the power of that government and creating a system of checks and balances within, and

Federalist papers were a series of essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison and were publish with the pen name “Publius”. They were first written to urge the citizens of New York City to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. This paper will analyze the problem of tyranny of the majority in both society and the government by using Madison’s Federalist Papers No.10 and 51. It will also discuss how the republican government and separation of powers provide remedies.