1. Looking at how calm spoken, but mentally raged Murray expressed herself in this document, I can see how she feels from a standpoint of today’s society. Women in certain fields are dogged out constantly. An example would be Hilary Clinton. She wanted to run for President, but the majority of people against it were men. Reason being her sex, she’s a woman, we are said to not have the emotions, the mid, the qualities of a leader. Wait, stop, and hold on a second they went through this in the 1700’s you’re kidding right? Time repeats itself thoroughly. By looking at the text Murray indicated that by laws of nature we are all equal, and have the same capabilities. A man can sew just as a woman, but a woman can be as great of a politician as a man if not better. Her words are so to the point and spot on. “Is it reasonable, that a candidate for immortality, for the joys of heaven, an intelligent being, who is to spend an eternity contemplating the works of Deity, should at present be so degraded, as to be allowed no other ideas, than those which are suggested by the mechanisms of a pudding, or the sewing the seams of a garment...” A strong question to answer a dumb on in my opinion. Why would I accept a position without a passion for it? Ants are born and the queen says, digger, scout, army, and so on. No liberty among ants’ male or female. (Page 220)

2. For the most part, it is a weapon for greater than a nuke on the American Government. Freedom of the press, it is the people’s way of executing the push of open ears so that their voice will be heard. It is a safe guard of our liberties. As the document on page 221 closes it stresses this point very strongly by urging and pushing of the preservation of freedom of expression. “Let us remain firm in attachment to principles… Let u be particularly watchful to preserve inviolate the freedom of opinion, assured that it is the most effectual weapon for the protection of our liberty.” Use our voice to protect the liberties we enjoy now, would be the message to the people of the time from this document. (Page 221,220)

3. From what I have read on page 221, freedom of expression was to be to all citizens, but a strong conflict is addressed within this text. Reading towards the end of the passage I notice several points. One strong point is, “If freedom of opinion, in the sense we understand it, is the right of every citizen, by what mode of reasoning can that right be denied to an assemblage of citizens?” If it is said to be a freedom of which all citizens have, then grouping up those who have said freedom shouldn’t occur. Freedom to all citizens means to all not you are a citizen but these groups of citizens are the only ones who have said freedom. A clear picture is painted of who should enjoy such, and that would be in my opinion people of power or in a higher class. Lower class people’s opinion in so many cases in the early, days was not even addressed. It is the right of any man to enjoy this freedom. (Page 221)