THE DIFFUSION OF INNOVATIONS AMONG THE AMERICAN STATES* JACK L. WALKER

               "The object of this analysis is the process of diffusion of ideas for new services or programs. Sometimes new legislation is virtually copied from other states. The California fair trade law, adopted in 1931, "was followed either verbatim or with minor variations by twenty states; in fact, ten states copied two serious typographical errors in the original California law."8 No assumption is being made, however, that the programs enacted in each state are always exactly alike or that new legislation is written in exactly the same way by every legislature". 

               For me I think Walker. 1969.clarified diffusion of innovations among the American states.In the American Political Science Review most States vary in how rapidly they tend to adopt new programs, policies' local legislature and many more. This variation can be explained with the "tree" model. There are regional leaders of innovation who emulate and compete with one another (this is the center of the tree, the main few branches). The rest of the states are smaller branches, sorted out according to the regional pioneer from which they take their cues.

              I chose to elaborate more on this paragraph because when Walker speaks of innovation, he doesn't refer to anything more than adopting a new program. Even if a state adopts a new program begrudgingly and appropriates only $1000 to it, the state has adopted the new program. Furthermore, Walker refers only to programs adopted by state legislatures and not by bureaucrats

             As to treating most states as identical and interchangeable and assumes that her interactive variable's significance implies actual influence of one state on another. However, it's possible to observe interaction without influence and noninteraction with influence

               Moreover, many may contend or try to rule out Walker's notion of regional emulation, assuming that any one state might emulate any other. Perhaps if we had considered these competing factors, then we would have noticed that rapidly diffusing policies are generally non-interactive but slowly diffusing policies are generally interactive

Revisiting the Constitution: Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President

           "  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".

             This particular paragraph taken from Akhil Reed Amar's article "Allow Naturalized Citizens to Be President" law and political science professor  at Yale University contended that “All men are created equal.” Today, this glittering promise means far more than it meant in 1776. “Men” now includes “women,” and a black baby born today is the legal equal of a white baby. First-born children get no larger automatic inheritances than second-born kids, and America is fast approaching a time when those born gay have all the rights of those born straight. He simply argued about why naturalized citizens like myself are not allowed to run for the seat of the presidency because most federal Constitution builds on state constitutional ideas and practices. Naturalized citizens are allowed to lead every state; the rules for the presidency should follow suit. Ultimately, America should be more than a land where every child can one day grow up to become a governor or president and not just lower political offices.

            Base on this political standpoint Republican presidential candidate Mr. Donald J. Trump has increasingly taking jabs at Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, who is riding momentum as his closers rivalry from the beginning of their presidential race on the republican side. But so far, Mr. Cruz is resisting the bait.

           In the latest in a series of barbs against Mr. Cruz, Mr. Trump said there were questions about whether Mr. Cruz, who was born in Canada but whose mother was a United States citizen, was eligible to seek the presidency, making the comments in interviews with a New Hampshire television station and separately with The Washington Post.The issue could end up tying Mr. Cruz up in court, Mr. Trump has told numerous media around the country.The Constitution restricts the presidency to a “natural born citizen,” but many legal scholars have said that this would apply to Mr. Cruz, although a similar issue has never been tested in the courts. Mr. Cruz, who was born in Calgary, renounced his Canadian citizenship in 2014.Mr. Cruz sought to brush off Mr. Trump’s questions about his eligibility, posting on Twitter a clip from the “jump the shark” episode of “Happy Days,” which has become a cultural reference for when something once popular has become overdone and gimmicky.