1.The issue this article is about the inconsistencies in the constitutional restrains that are put on the Federal government, and why its the limitation put on a democracy are just as important as democracy itself.
2.The author believes that by trying to stay in a "middle ground" in constitutional restraints is impossible. Once one rule has been lifted for an exception, no matter how popular the exception is, all of the rules are called into questions. This is could lead to one day rules and rights that were thought to be basic and undebatable being called into question which is a very dangerous thing for any republic.
3. The writer makes his argument by citing historical examples of past democracies including Hungary, and focus on the the issues being pressed by the democratic party, the republican party, and the tea party movement.
4. I believe the writers argument is succinct deliberate and makes his point very clear. I am inclined to agree with him and I think he brings up some very interesting points on why there cant be a middle ground between strict restrictions stemming form the constitution and having almost now constitutional restraints, he is able to create a create a clear picture without resorting to sensationalism.
5. I really like this writers style. He seems very balanced and always in control of where the piece is taking the reader. he keeps his judgments reserved and gives the impression of an expert. I do not know If I will be able to adapt this style to my own writing but i will defiantly try to use some elements of it to enhance this essay.
6. The number one way I will attempt to incorporate his style into my piece will be to avoid all semblance of sensationalism, a technique to common in political writing. I will attempt to argue my point with a lot of historical evidence and logic as the foundation of my argument, but I will never say that the country is doomed our anything to over dramatic.
No comments:
Post a Comment