The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States

By: Jack L. Walker

“Given the results of this correlational analysis, we might conclude that New York, California and Michigan adopt new programs more rapidly than Mississippi, Wyoming and South Dakota primarily because they are bigger, richer, more urban, more industrial, have more fluidity and turnover in their political systems, and have legislatures which more adequately represents their cities.” 

This passage is explaining how these cities like New York, California and Michigan adapt to more of a variable programs and laws because of the size and population of the people in those cities. There is more money invested in these cities and that attracts more people from all over the world to go there. Since these cities have so many different types of people with different beliefs living there, they are more open to change than in other places like Wyoming and South Dakota. In the Political systems we see different types of senators running for offices and that gives these larger cities an opportunity to always have someone and something different in the office. Smaller cities usually pick the same format of people to run for office. That is a disadvantage for them because they would not consider change, even if it’s for the better.

I picked this passage because I find it very interesting that New York since it is a bigger, richer, more urban and more industrial city, it don’t always consider change like California. California has legalized Gay marriage and marijuana like most other sates but New York has only legalized Gay marriage by state legislature. Another interesting factor is that Michigan in 2012 has legalized Marijuana but not Gay marriage. It seems like these big cities that are subject to change only change to a certain degree. 

By: Akhil Reed Amar

"But those American citizens who happen to have been born abroad to non-American parents — and who later choose to become “naturalized” American citizens — are not the full legal equals of those of us born in the U.S. True, naturalized Americans have always been allowed to serve as cabinet secretaries, Supreme Court justices, senators and governors. And at the founding, anyone already a citizen could be president, regardless of birthplace. (Alexander Hamilton, for example, though born in the West Indies, was fully eligible to serve as president under the Constitution he himself helped draft.) But modern-day naturalized citizens are barred from the presidency simply because they were born in the wrong place to the wrong parents."

What Akhil Reed Amar was trying to say was that US citizens that were not born in the United States were not the same or equal as US citizens born here. They have more value when it comes to certain situation because of the fact that they were actually born inside the country. It speaks about the fact that US citizens born outside the US can not become President of the United States. He blames being born in the wrong place to the wrong parents the reason why you can't become president, because those parents did not have the opportunity to live in the United States before giving birth. 

I chose this passage because I am a US citizen that was not born inside of the United States. I was born in the Dominican Republic and came to this country at the age of four. I became a US citizen a couple of years ago and I had to defend my citizenship against a "friend" that was born here. He didn't consider me a full citizen because I paid for my citizenship. The way I see it he wasn't a "real" citizen to begin with because he didn't know this country history. Yes I paid to become a citizen but I had to study this country history and I've been living in this country for 24 years. This country is ALL I know and I am proud to say I am an American Citizen. I do not agree with the law that you can't become a president if you was not born here because that shouldn't been the main focus. There is more to being a citizen than just the country you was born in. 

The Federalist No. 10

"No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens?"

What I believe it's states in this passage is that no person can be or should be both the judge and party at the same time becuase it would be impossible to see both sides when that person is being both. He or she is only going to look after their own point of view. Its easy and more convenient when you have to judge others because you would see the situation from an outsider and not from one of the sides. 

I've picked this passage because it's something I believe is happening now a days. People are judging others by giving their own opinion of that particular situation. Instead of them gathering the facts about that particular subject, they just give their two senses. They Judge with out thinking of the outcome or the situation ahead of time.

Trans-National America

"We are all foreign-born or the descendants of foreign-born, and if distinctions are to be made between us, they should rightly be on some other ground than indigenousness. The early colonists came over with motives no less colonial than the later. They did not come to be assimilated in an American melting pot. They did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian. They had not the smallest intention of 'giving themselves without reservation' to the new country. They came to get freedom to live as they wanted to. They came to escape from the stifling air and chaos of the old world; they came to make their fortune in a new land."

What I believe Randolph Bourne meant by this passage is that we are all the same. We are either born in a foreign country or descendants of a generation from a foreign country. The immigrants from back then came to this country with the same mind set as the immigrants from now. They came to this country to live the American dream and get a better life for their families. As Bourne states, they did not come to adopt the culture of the American Indian, but to live free and make a better life for themselves. 

I chose this passage because I find it to be very interesting and I also agree with Randolph Bourne. I feel since this is a free country (or so I thought), people should be able to keep their culture and beliefs while adjusting to America. They come here for a better life and to help support their families. They should not be force to be Americanize because they want to live here. They should show respect for this country but they should not be force to forget everything they know from their own country. 

Despite Negativity, Americans Mixed on Ideal Role of Gov't by Frank Newport 

"Some of the negative views of government are related to politics. The fact that Democrats were more concerned about government power when Bush was president and Republicans are more concerned about it with Obama as president shows that some people will be negative about the government simply because of political partisanship. Additionally, there are clear philosophical and ideological differences in views of the government that create the dynamic tension that exists in any democratic system, with conservatives generally favoring less government and liberals favoring more government."

What this passage is trying to explain is how the negativity of people regarding politics all depends on which party the negativity is coming from. For example a republican is not going to have a negative impact on a republican president, because he or she is going to agree with the decisions the republican president make. That person is not going to agree with the decisions the democrat president make because usually one party is looking out for their own party. The different views of the people are pushing more for a liberal government where they do not depend on a government for every decision. 

I have chosen this passage because I think it's a very true statement. Republicans and Democrats are made to look after their own party, even though at this point I'm starting to believe they just look out for themselves. Back when Bush was president, every one that I knew hated him for everything he was doing. Many people believe that he was the worst president in history and at one point I agree. Now that Obama is in his second term, people are saying he has done a bad job and he is not fit to be president. The people I hear saying this are Republicans. I just wonder if the people would ever be satisfied. Another reason why I picked this passage is because people now a days want more of the liberal government. Looking at other countries that do not have a government or are communist make me wonder if a more liberal government is a good idea.