Expert Answers

Investigative Paper: Federalist Papers: Nos. 9, 10, 39, 51 Find an item in a newspaper, periodical, or current academic journal that relates to the assigned readings for Week 3 on The Federalist Papers. Apply the analysis of the week’s reading to the item and explore the themes, ideas, issues, or controversies presented in the article you select against the readings assigned for the module. The content of your investigative paper may overlap with but cannot be the exact same as the topics of your discussion posts. The focus of your paper is, in part, up to you. Your paper should focus on some aspect of that week’s readings and offer an analysis of some facet of those readings. While the investigative paper is open to discussion and your opinion, you should provide evidence and support for your arguments. Papers should include direct references to the assigned text, but should not be summaries of the weekly readings. Simple summaries of the readings will not receive credit. Additionally, do not use a summary or critical evaluation of the assigned reading. Instead, focus on a particular issue that arises in both the assigned reading and the outside article of your choice. Alternatively, you can use the outside article as an example of or foil to the ideas presented in the assigned reading. What ideas in the reading were of interest to you or that you see in the world around you? Find an outside article that explores these similar themes (or contrasts with them) and evaluate the assigned reading in light of it. Your answer should show a thoughtful consideration of the question, demonstrate your understanding of the material, and be supported with evidence from the text (including proper citation). Your writing should be clear and concise. These papers are not to be treated as “book reports.” Avoid long introductions. You should begin by directly addressing the question and/or providing a “road map” for your paper. You should include references and quotes from these authors when necessary to show evidence for your argument. With this in mind, do not over quote or pack your paper with dense quotes. Quotes should not be used without direct connection to or explanation of ideas. They should not introduce or conclude your paper or any given paragraph within your paper. Minimum word count: 900 words Please use standard formatting which includes 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Please remember to number the pages of your paper. Support your answer with evidence from the text and include proper citation where appropriate. Use in-text citations and be sure to include a reference list at the end of your paper. Do not use footnotes or endnotes for your citations and references.

This paper will be about an operational rule or practice of a political system outside the U.S that you find interesting and that you think the U.S. should consider adopting. You will describe the rule or practice and evaluate the wisdom of adopting it here. Specifically, you should describe the benefits you think it would bring but also the costs it might impose, and you should consider what difficulties might be involved in adapting the rule or practice to fit the U.S. system. Your focus should be on improving how the political system operates, not certain substantive policies it produces. If you're not sure, please check with me in advance. I will be looking for sophisticated reasoning and use of ideas from class, both in your discussion of the large goals that would (or would not) be well served by the reform you're considering and in your discussion of why you think the reform would have (or not have) certain effects. You will need to do some independent research to identify a rule or practice from another country that interests you, but most of the paper should be your own thinking. I would expect papers to be about 6-8 pages. The format of citations doesn't matter to me, but it is essential that you clearly cite any sources for information you didn't know or ideas or language you are incorporating in your paper

Please respond to each post. 150 words response for each. Post 1: Art In analyzing the two different ideologies of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists, both offer unique points of view in the formation of a governing document. The Federalists outline their support for the Constitution in The Federalist Papers. As the new Constitution called for a more centralized system of government (in contrast to the Articles of Confederation), the Federalists saw this as a necessity in order to ensure stability and unity of the new nation. In contrast, Letters of Brutus I displays Anti-Federalist sentiment against the current proposal of the Constitution. Brutus raises concerns about the risks of consolidating too much power at the federal level, arguing that this could lead to tyranny. It would then have the ability to infringe upon the liberties of individuals and states. In the characterization of the American people, both John Jay and Brutus offer their own unique depictions. John Jay describes them as being united. They are of common ancestry, cultural values, and experiences. They are also fond of the same principles of government. Jay believes that this shared identity provides the foundation for a strong and unified nation that is able to sustain a centralized government. He lays out these qualities as strong reasons why the nation is capable of being large while also having the ability to be unified. Brutus, however, lays out a different argument. He instead argues that the American people are too diverse geographically and culturally. The American people could not possibly all be united and have the capability of having a centralized government that could be responsive enough. In his view, more state autonomy would serve the people best. I believe both the Federalists and Anti-Federalists offer plausible arguments and legitimate concerns in their own respects. In order to be united as a nation, there must be a centralized unifying force that binds the country as a whole. In Federalist 6, Hamilton supports this idea by warning that a lack of unity could lead to conflicts among divided states. Without a strong federal government to maintain order and stability, these conflicts could fracture the nation. On the other hand, Brutus' concern is that human nature will eventually lead the federal government to undermine the states. Brutus highlights specific provisions in the Constitution as potential tools that are ripe for abuse in the consolidation power. These provisions could allow the federal government to expand its authority beyond its intended limits. The debate between these two competing ideas reflects intriguing questions about balancing unity and diversity, as well as the risks and benefits of centralizing power. While the Federalists offer a vision of stability through unity, the Anti-Federalists are wary against overreach and the erosion of liberties. Both perspectives are valuable in understanding the challenges of governance even to this day. Post 2: Catherine Brutus 1 was written by an Anti-Federalist under “Brutus”, and Federalist 2 was written by John Jay under “Publius.” John Jay had a vision of a more unified country and thought that a Strong Central Government will make America stronger since everyone may share the same interests if the people already share the same language, religion and desire for freedom. He believes that the ratification of the Constitution will not only preserve this unity but it will strengthen the nation. The thing about Jay’s vision of this perfect unified country is very ideal, but it was somewhat naïve and unrealistic. Sure everyone in America wanted freedom, but we can’t ignore the fact that the colonists came from different countries in the world. Also due to the geographical differences between the states, the climate is different and the agricultural industries for each state will be different from one another. The differences completely outweighed all the things that made everyone “the same.” As much as the people may share a common interest of having a strong country, I think Jay was not correct that the people are similar enough when it comes to religion, morals, character and language. Maybe during that time that could be slightly true, but that way of thinking will not work today in Modern America with it being a huge melting pot. Brutus 1 opposes the ratification of the Constitution and strongly emphasizes that each state need to have power of their own over a centralized Federal government. Brutus didn’t think that checks and balances will work, and thought that the diversity and the different regions that the states are located in plays a huge part in the needs and wants of the people which built a strong case to where a centralized government will not work because the needs of the people will not be well represented. Brutus also brought up the downsides of The Necessary and Proper Clause as well as the Supremacy Clause, because this can open doors to tyranny, authoritarianism and abuse of power. This is where I think Hamilton’s view was the “meet in the middle” kind of view. Both Hamilton and Brutus acknowledged that strong ambitions from a strong central government may not be the best thing, but at the same time checks and balances can fix this problem. While Hamilton also believes in the need for unity and a strong federal government, he made it clear that the federal government still needs to preserve the power of the states. He also made a great point, that ratification of the Constitution was a must, because they need to get rid of the Articles of Confederation, if the ratification does not happen it will for sure lead to the dissolution of the Union. It may not be perfect, but the country needed a constitution and it can be more good than bad. But he did lay out some of the negative sides and acknowledged it. I think Hamilton and Brutus found a lot of common ground and made some really great points. Post 3: Grace Brutus I puts a large amount of power and influence in the American citizens. He acknowledges the “fountain of power” (Brutus I) that is the American people. New found citizens of the United States are entrusted with preserving freedoms for generations to come. Along with those points, Brutus I highlights the diversity of the American population. The country is blanketed as a melting pot of different cultures, backgrounds, and interests. On a similar note, the Federalists, specifically John Jay, discusses the all encompassed idea that unity keeps the American population under a shared umbrella of values. In comparison, he continues to write in the 2nd Federalist paper that the American population should give up certain personal freedoms in order for the government to function. Regardless of relinquishing personal freedoms, the past failures of the Articles of Confederation proves the resilience of the American population to stay united even during times of conflict. Jay highlighted the need for a unified government as a way to protect from foreign intervention and the government of the people to be unified under enough common values to make that a reality. Moving forward to modern day, how much of John Jay’s ideas of a united government have become a reality? The United Nations has a Universal Declaration of Human rights that is accepted by enough countries to prove humans can be unified on broad subjects. A problem brought up by Brutus I is the size of the United States and how difficult it is to govern such a large area. He used the example of the Greeks' increase in size as a reason for their downfall. On the contrary, large areas of different governments have used methods of unification. For example, the European Union was created to make trading, traveling, and policies more simplistic and connected. The United States has an overarching government that connects the state governments. The issue of size does not stop a group of separated governments from becoming interconnected. Representation throughout a large nation can be relatively solved through multiple layers of representation: federal, state, and local governments each with their own representatives. Alexander Hamilton warned of an ambitious few that would seek out control over the American people. Brutus I commends this warning by using the Necessary and Proper Clause; standing army during peacetime; and the supremacy clause as ways the federal government could increase its power. This is a realistic threat. In America alone, the wealth inequality has shown that there is a difference in power between the majority and a chosen few. According to the Federal Reserve data the richest 1% now control 54% of stock, which has increased from 40% in 2002. Post 4:Tariqah Brutus highlights the wide range of differences among the states regarding climate, economy, customs, and laws. He argues that these differences make it impossible to govern effectively as one large republic, suggesting that a centralized government would become too detached from the people’s needs. He emphasizes that genuine representation requires familiarity and shared interests, which are impractical in a nation as large and varied as the U.S. His concerns lie in the risk of tyranny, particularly with provisions like the Necessary and Proper Clause and the Supremacy Clause, which he views as threats to state sovereignty and individual liberties. Jay presents a unifying view of the American people. He describes them as having the same shared heritage, language, religion, and guiding principles of government. He sees these shared traits as the foundation for unity and the justification for a strong federal government. Jay views America as a state designed for unity, with natural resources and geography that bind the states together. He argues that the collective war experiences and independence further solidify this bond. Jay’s depiction may seem idealistic, while Brutus provides a more practical judgment of human and political diversity. Given modern debates about the disconnect between national institutions and local communities, Brutus’ warnings about the challenges of representing a large, diverse population feel predictive. Brutus is skeptical that a genuinely representative government can function in a nation as vast as the U.S. He warns that representatives in such a system would be too detached to understand local needs, risking centralized control and tyranny. Jay, on the other hand, trusts in the shared identity of Americans to create a unified, representative government. Hamilton was dramatic, in my opinion. Hamilton warns against "demagogues" who might exploit political passions for personal gain, stressing the need for reasoned deliberation. Brutus, meanwhile, focuses on structural dangers like the Necessary and Proper Clause, the Supremacy Clause, and a standing army. Both share a concern about unchecked power, but Brutus sees the proposed Constitution as inherently flawed in guarding against it. In conclusion, Brutus’ caution about the risks of consolidation and loss of local autonomy deserves serious consideration. However, Jay’s optimism about unity underscores the potential for shared identity to overcome divisions. Balancing these views is essential to addressing the inherent tensions in government.

You have to write a policy brief on US-Russian (or a country of your choice) relations and their immediate future for the period from 2024 and 2026. A policy brief is a written report to justify a particular government policy chosen over other options. In most cases, policy briefs are produced upon a request from a government’s agency or some other institution. In our case, you are asked to prepare a policy brief for the Committee on Foreign Affairs at the US House of Representatives. Policy briefs should contain compelling factual materials about the current state of affairs and a critical assessment of these facts. Policy briefs also contain arguments to justify the recommended policy, the expected benefits, as well as possible problems if the policy is implemented. In your present report, you have to evaluate the current status if US-Russia relations from your point of view and propose specific policy steps for the future. As a professional, you are expected to compare and contrast different views and opinions of US-Russia relations and the United States’ policy toward Russia. It is recommended to review the following articles written in the past (updated) by policy experts from leading think-tanks and universities (below). Feel free to select other articles. The Wilson Center:https://www.wilsoncenter.org/event/scenarios-post-putin-russia The Heritage Foundation: https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/the-us-and-its-allies-must-understand-and-respond-russias-nuclear-threats The Carnegie Foundation https://carnegieendowment.org/politika/90543 The Brookings Institution https://www.brookings.edu/regions/eurasia/russia/ The National Interest https://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-needs-palmerstonian-foreign-policy-206724 The Nation https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/us-russia-putin-relations-nato/ Which articles (except the suggested ones) did you choose for your analysis? Summarize their conclusions in 1-2 paragraphs. Which position or opinion do you tend to support and why? Which view do you not support and why? What is your view? What policies—from your point of view—should the United States conduct toward Russia in 2025-26? Describe specific policies and specific areas. In which areas could the United States and Russia cooperate? Do you support economic and pollical sanctions and why? Do you think that any form of cooperation with Russia is in fact a helping gesture to Putin’s authoritarian regime? What positive outcomes do you expect if your policy is implemented? What negative consequences do you expect if your recommendations fail? Review your paper and provide a catchy, original opening and a similar conclusion for your brief. Suggested length of you brief: at least 3,000 words

Write an essay on the questions it raises, trying to produce a single, integrated paper with a clearly stated thesis (which should be underlined) and well-developed line of argument, even though the topic may consist of several distinct quotation and questions. Support your argument with lots of evidence from the required reading by providing page references, but do not use long quotations. You are welcome to use whichever citation system you prefer (Harvard, MLA, etc.), but are required to use that system correctly. You are also required to use the Stephanos pagination (the pagination in the left and right margins of the text) in all citations of Plato’s Republic. Failure to provide textual evidence or to use the Stephanos pagination when citing the text will result in substantial penalties. Essays should be 3-5 pages long (approximately 900-1500 words), double-spaced, using a 12 pt. font and one-inch margins. Also, be sure to indicate explicitly the specific prompt. You are not required to agree with the views expressed in the questions and quotations. “When all is said and done no one wants to be ruled by self-interested, narrow-minded ideologues. If philosophers are truly able to care more for the common good than their private goods and to take a larger view of the needs of society, why not let them rule? No doubt there are dangers in doing so, but there are far more dangers in not doing so.” Write an essay that examines the issues raised in this quotation. In the course of your analysis, be sure to explain whether you agree or disagree with the view it expresses, and why.

The 2 surveys that she mentions we took are the screenshots of the Political Compass and the Political Typology Quiz. I have what I need you to continue the paper on and I have the questions below the thesis and next to the questions are how I feel about the questions, I agree with them all. The thesis and 3 questions that I turned in that you have to go off of to write the paper is this: Thesis: I had taken 2 political surveys to see where I would fall on the scale of political views and on the first one I was 2nd to the last block on the right which was called committed conservatives. On the second survey I was surprised and also confused on some of the questions and I ended up falling on the authoritarian/left side. It was odd for me to see the difference in both of the surveys because overall I would say I lean way more towards the right and conservative side and not so much for the left. 3 questions: 1. How much of a problem, if any, would you say each of the following are in the country today? People being too easily offended by things others say. (Pew Research Center page 10) I think people get offended very easily now in days. 2. Governments should penalize businesses that mislead the public. Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. (The Political Compass page 2) I agree to this statement. 3. Abortion, when the woman’s life is not threatened, should always be illegal. Strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. (The Political Compass page 3) I agree to this statement.

What do you think is the greatest challenge facing the United States in the next few decades? Describe the problem Why do you think this overshadows other issues? What do you think could be done to start solving it? Essay is worth 50 Points. Pay attention to composition, grammar, form, spelling and use of material from the textbook, documents, or videos. Approximately 500 to 750 words.

***** PLEASE DO NOT USE AI GENERATED SOFTWARE. IT IS CHECKED THOROUGHLY!! Assignment: In Federalist No. 51, Madison asks: “But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?”. Indeed, the Federalist Papers contain numerous reflections and comments on human nature, including arguments for why human nature necessitates certain governmental institutions and safeguards. Considering the Federalist Papers and Letters of Brutus assigned for class, how do these authors account for human nature? Are there any exceptions to their general depiction of human nature? With this understanding, how do the Federalists and Brutus characterize the people, politicians, and other ambitious individuals? What does this suggest for our expectations of democratic governance? Whose vision of human nature, the Federalists or Brutus, better matches their proposed organization of government and/or criticisms of the proposed Constitution? Finally, what might this mean for Publius’ question to the reader at the outset of Federalist No. 1, “…whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force”? Your answer should show a thoughtful consideration of the question, demonstrate your understanding of the material, and be supported with evidence from the text (including proper citation). Your writing should be clear and concise. These papers are not to be treated as “book reports.” You are constructing an argument but should not be inserting your opinions. Do not speak from the nagging or any other kind of “I,” and do not include any personal reflections (this includes evaluations of the respective author’s principles and thoughts). Avoid long introductions. You should begin by directly addressing the question and/or providing a “road map” for your paper. Additionally, do not include historical references that are not addressed by the author, and only use those examples if it furthers your answering of the question on the prompt. You do not need to create any context to answer the question. I want to see that you understand the Federalists’ and Brutus’ ideas/theories. Focus on the texts and use only the texts as a resource. This will include citing and quoting the Federalists and Brutus when necessary to show evidence for your answer. You should be mindful to pull broadly from the various texts whenever possible (do not pick from a small selection and expect that it will be sufficient to make your argument). With this in mind, do not over quote or pack your paper with dense quotes. Quotes should not be used without direction connection to or explanation of ideas. They should not introduce or conclude your paper or any given paragraph within your paper. Also, avoid using anachronistic (this includes comparing the author to contemporary issues, ideas, etc.) or extensive examples. ****Please read additional assignment details as well! Analytical Papers Your answer should show a thoughtful consideration of the question, demonstrate your understanding of the material, and be supported with evidence from the text (including quotes and proper citation). Your writing should be clear and concise. These papers are not to be treated as “book reports.” You are constructing an argument but should not be inserting your opinions. Do not speak from the nagging or any other kind of “I,” and do not include any personal reflections (this includes evaluations of the respective author’s principles and thoughts). Avoid long introductions. You should begin by directly addressing the question and/or providing a “road map” for your paper. Additionally, do not include historical references that are not addressed by the author, and only use those examples if it furthers your answering of the question on the prompt. You do not need to create any context to answer the question. I want to see that you understand the thinkers’ ideas/theories. Focus on the text and use only the text as a resource. This will include citing and quoting the author to show evidence for your answer. With this in mind, do not over quote or pack your paper with dense quotes. Quotes should not be used without direction connection to or explanation of ideas. They should not introduce or conclude your paper or any given paragraph within your paper. Also, avoid using anachronistic (this includes comparing the author to contemporary issues, ideas, etc.) or extensive examples. Please use standard formatting which includes 12-point font and 1-inch margins. Please remember to number the pages. Support your answer with evidence from the text and include proper citation where appropriate. When citing the assigned reading, provide a reference for which edition you are using at the end of the paper. Also, you should cite the texts using in-text citations that include the name of the text or author and the page number.

POLITICAL ACTION ASSIGNMENT Overview Political engagement is an important facet of American political life. It is always essential to be politically engaged in your local community. This assignment asks you to write an email to a local official in your community about an issue that concerns you. Learning Outcomes By completing this assignment, you will: Demonstrate your understanding of a branch of your local government. (Stephenville, Texas) Demonstrate your awareness of a current issue in your community. Professionally communicate, in writing, your opinion about a local issue in your community. Tasks Please write a brief email to a local elected official concerning an issue in your local community. You can select any recent issue in your community that affects you. Issues can range from public safety, legislation, corruption, public health, etc. Your email can be written to raise a concern or to compliment an official’s work but the tone should be professional and courteous. The email can be addressed to your local councilperson, congressperson, state senator, mayor’s office, etc. The email to the elected official should be at least one paragraph and 100-200 words. Include a link to a relevant news article or video on the issue you are writing about within the email. Note: It is not required that you actually send your email or receive a response to earn credit for this assignment, but you are required to create the correspondence in email/letter form and include a relevant link from a news source. Requirements Your email should be a minimum of 100-200 words and written in a professional, business-like tone. It should include a link to a relevant news article or video about the issue. Submit your email/letter in Microsoft Word (.docx) or PDF format. Requirements: 100-200 words

Write a 3-5 page research essay (double-spaced, 12 point font) on any country (other than the U.S.) of your choosing. The prompt for the essay is as follows: Choose a country in the world that you are interested in (as this is Poli Sci 2, please choose a country other than the U.S.). Research a current event in your chosen country by looking it up in the news. You must apply what you learned from class and the textbook to the current event you found. You must use specific things that you learned from class (lecture and the textbook) to give your own interpretation of the following two things: 1) What caused the event/situation in your chosen country? 2) What do you predict/forecast will be the long-term effects of the event/situation in your chosen country? For example, if you found news about a protest movement currently going on in your chosen country, you must then use ideas and concepts from class to analyze why the protest occurred and what you predict will happen to the protest. In your own analysis of these causes and effects of the political protest, you might integrate relevant things you learned about what explains political behavior, Authoritarian Institutions, Citizens and Regimes, Contentious Politics and Regime Change, Identity, Equality, and Inclusion, Political Economy, Markets, and Globalization, etc. Try to tie in as many concepts, ideas, and arguments from class that you think are relevant to the current event in your chosen country. You are required to include specific ideas from the assigned readings in the textbook to support what you say in your essay. When doing so, you must include citations. You are free to look up other sources in addition to your textbook while researching for your essay, but you are required to at least have citations to the assigned readings from the textbook. (Having no citations to the Bozonelos et al. free online textbook will result in point deductions.) Regarding citations, wherever you write about something from any source, you must immediately add a parenthetic citation at the end of the sentence. The parenthetic citation should be in the following format: (last name of author, section number) Example: If citing an idea about "democratic consolidation" found in Section 4.4 of the Bozonelos et al. free online textbook, you will give a parenthetic citation as follows: (Bozonelos et al., 4.4.) If citing from any online resources, for the purposes of this class, simply place the author’s last name and/or title of the online resource within parentheses as a parenthetic citation. Include the full web address (URL) on the bibliography, works cited, reference page at the end. You must include a works cited (bibliography or references) page at the end listing (alphabetically by last name) everything to which you cited in your essay. For any online resource, list the author’s name and/or title, web address (URL), and the date that you accessed it. Note: your works cited (bibliography or references) page WILL NOT be included in the page count for the required 3-5 pages. Your 12 points will be based on how well you really, really explain your thoughts and examples, how much and how well you integrate specific ideas from the assigned readings (with appropriate citations), and how well you write your essay to have no spelling/grammatical errors and/or readability issues. The more that you can include specific things that we covered in class to support your arguments and the more explanations that you provide, the better you will do on this essay. Please upload your essay here to Canvas (see upload/submission directions below). Your essay must be an actual file that can be uploaded (Microsoft Word document, PDF document, etc.) to Canvas. I will not accept links to your documents stored on sharable drives, cloud storage, etc. Beware: once you upload your essay, it automatically goes through an online plagiarism check against other essays submitted for this class, for other classes at ELAC and elsewhere, as well as material found on the internet. If your essay gets a “plagiarism alert”, it will not be tolerated and will require further disciplinary action in accordance with ELAC policy.