Background Story [Source]:

President Eisenhower once warned the American public during his farewell address that “we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In which he stressed the importance for us not to engage in foreign conflicts, disagreements, and/or proxy wars. A proxy war is a military conflict between two countries in which both sides of the conflict have superpower influences and support behind them. His farewell address came in during the height of the Vietnam War. And since then, we have had numerous other wars, for example, Gulf War, Iraq War, Afghanistan War, Yemen, Syria, and Libya interventions, just to name a few. Eisenhower’s original intention was to limit the United States defense contractors’ influences on the politicians on the Hill. In doing so, we should be able to prevent engaging and bringing the United States into more unnecessary and costly wars.

Question 1: Based on our readings of the United States Constitutions Article 1, section 7, do you believe that is even possible?

Follow-up question #1: Do you believe Eisenhower’s hope has failed? Why or why not?

Follow-up question #2: Do you believe that the political contributions from defense contractors weld too much power to our politicians to a point that our constitution couldn’t even prevent? Is this really inevitable?

 Background Story #2: 

James Madison is exceptionally recognized and well known for his disbelief in human nature. He believes that even humans borne with exceptional characters and qualities can fall victims to temptations because they are still, in fact, humans and, therefore, exploitable. Thus, his philosophical ideology was to put a stop to the divine rights of the king and, with that, the superiority in which they were enshrined at birth. However, he was also very hesitant about the idea of granting the people absolute power over governmental affairs. Because in that parallel universe, he faces not the autocracy of kings but the tyranny of the majority. Therefore, the best way to alleviate both concerns is to divide up the power of the governmental sectors while also limiting the power of the people (majority). He solemnly believes that the right does not always preside with the people with the highest vocal or immense support. Sometimes, the truth holds with the minority population.

Question 1: After the 2016 election, there was a huge public outcry for California to secede from the union and become its own country. Texas also has a similar initiative to secede from the Union in the past. Although both initiatives failed, suppose that it was successful and that the federal government allows this secession, would it really be in the interest of everyone in the state? Why or why not?

Question 2: Also after the 2016 election, there was also a massive movement and calls for the abolishment of the electoral college. The rise of this movement was primarily fueled by the election result of that year because the result showed that former Secretary Clinton won the popular vote by a massive 3 million more votes in comparison to former President Trump. However, former President Trump won the Presidency by winning the electoral college in a landslide of 304 to 227.

Follow-up question 1: Now, which one do you favor more, the electoral college or the popular vote?

Follow-up question 2: How does that reflect James Madison’s idea? Why or why not?

Chapter Reading Reflection Questions

Questions 1: Which event do you believe, is the ultimate trigger point of the American revolutionary cause that eventually led to the unification of the colonies and the signing of the Declaration of Independence. 

Question 2: What are the similarities and differences between the federal reserve and the article of confederation? (I will elaborate and explain a bit more in detail in our Monday class. See you there! 😄)