The third piece by Akhil Reed Amar, looks at the limitations on naturalized citizens for holding office, specifically the President. The Constitution states that only citizens born in the U.S. are eligible to be President of the U.S., as he says:

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.

I found the article really interesting because it looks at the US constitution in a whole different way, which means that at the end of the day the constitution is not a perfect document the way people assume it is.This section of the article talks about the limitation of naturalized citizens. One of the main limitation is that they are not allow to become president because the constitution states that only those who born in the US are eligible to become president.In my opinion, I find this unfair because of many reasons one of then is that back this wasn't the case. Another reason is because nowadays they are naturalize latinos that are senators and congress of this country and this piece of paper which is the constitutions the perfect document people believe it is, limits their chance to run for the presidency. At the end of the day the constitution doesn't provide equality because their effort will no longer count if one day they want to become the leader of this nation. 

                          The Declaration of Independence

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

             The Declaration of Independence is an important document because it basically describes that the United States is no longer under the rule of Great Britain. On July 4th of 1776  was when the United declared its Independence and also announced the 13 colonies that they not longer be part of the British Empire. I found this paragraph to be especially significant because it talks about how the United states where able to accomplish their goal which was become an independent and free nation. In my opinion, I feel that when a country is able to become Independent it allows them to become more powerful, better decision makers and it allows them to become less reliable.However, for America this day is still an important day nowadays not only because the powerful meaning it this documentation contains but because it was also the start of a new nation.

What is America?

I have never managed to lose my old conviction that travel narrows the mind. At least a man must make a double effort of moral humility and imaginative energy to prevent it from narrowing his mind. Indeed there is something touching and even tragic about the thought of the thoughtless tourist, who might have stayed at home loving Laplanders, embracing Chinamen, and clasping Patagonians to his heart in Hampstead or Surbiton, but for his blind and suicidal impulse to go and see what they looked like. This is not meant for nonsense; still less is it meant for the silliest sort of nonsense, which is cynicism. The human bond that he feels at home is not an illusion. On the contrary, it is rather an inner reality. Man is inside all men. In a real sense any man may be inside any men. But to travel is to leave the inside and draw dangerously near the outside. So long as he thought of men in the abstract, like naked toiling figures in some classic frieze, merely as those who labour and love their children and die, he was thinking the fundamental truth about them. By going to look at their unfamiliar manners and customs he is inviting them to disguise themselves in fantastic masks and costumes. Many modern internationalists talk as if men of different nationalities had only to meet and mix and understand each other. In reality that is the moment of supreme danger—the moment when they meet. We might shiver, as at the old euphemism by which a meeting meant a duel.

The book is very confusing because the author writes in a very unique form. However, I feel that the article is basically describing America during the early times. The author also shares different types of cultural and political issues that America were facing during the time. This paragraph introduce you to early people that immigrates here to America and how it became an obstacle living their homeland and travel to an unknown place. As an immigrant I personally feels that culture change once you immigrates into America this is because people like me learn to adapt.

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

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

by Frank Newport

                   Majority Willing to Trade Off Lower Taxes for Fewer Services

A majority of Americans (56%) say they would be willing to pay less in taxes and accept fewer services, rather than either leaving things as they are now or paying more taxes for more services. This supports the general position of some conservatives and libertarians, including GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul. They argue that citizens should want their government to do less, and thus collect fewer taxes. Liberals, on the other hand, have focused on the value of the services the government provides, particularly in terms of creating jobs and providing a social safety net, and the necessity of keeping tax revenue flowing in order to fund those services. Fewer than half of Americans, however, currently want to keep or add to the level of taxes and services they have now.

Analysis:

Fist of all my opinion on the entire article is that it is a really interesting article and it provides information that you can relate to because it talks about how Americans nowadays have a negative point of view on how the nation is being governed.Personally I agree with the article when it talks about how the government of the United States contains a lot of power after 9/11.I decided to write about this paragraph because it’s explaining that the majority of Americans prefer to pay less taxes and receiving less services instead of paying more taxes and getting more services. New york city is one of the states where they pay an enormous percent of taxes  compared to other states.People in general don't seem to be satisfied and the main reason is because this situation  affects their lives. I totally agree and form part of the data of those who are willing to trade off lower taxes for a fewer service because it allows you to save money.