Here are some answers I came up with as soon as I got up (level of coherency is optional)
1) “Today there is a steadily growing body of knowledge about the environment and its impacts on the duration and quality of all forms of life. There is also steadily growing alarm. The more we learn the more we realize that our misuse of the environment can come home to roost. Not only nonhuman life forms are endangered; human life itself is threatened” (William Blackstone). What do we, as Americans, do about it?
Instill an understanding on a societal level if the impact that your environment has on you, and why you need to care for where you live in. If you shit in your bed, you can't complain when you sleep in it and don't clean it, etc. Enacting laws that reward environmental conscientiousness and punish environmental apathy would probably help, but ultimately the steps you're going to take (I don't know what they are) are leading to an appreciation and respect/care/sense of duty to the world you live in.
4) “The President and Senators so chosen will always be of the number of those who best understand our national interests, whether considered in relation to the several States or to foreign nations, who are best able to promote those interests, and whose reputation for integrity inspires and merits confidence” – John Jay Federalist #64. Is he right about politicians today? Why or why not? How can we attain this now?
He is not right about this today. The ultimate problem is that there is too much personal politics involved with government now, and there are too many power mongerers carving out their own empires in government. It's not their fault - this is a mindset that Americans exemplify. Take what you can, seize your own happiness etc. - it is an example of the American Dream. The problem is, the fulfillment of their American Dream causes a little bit of damage to the running of the country.
The easiest way to combat this is to force accountability for actions and force complete transparency on all things government, with the exception being the military while it's involved with a war. When politicians are forced to accept the consequences of their backroom deals and have to be completely open about everything they have, things will likely change.
They can complain, but their office is one that operates best when it is filled with self-sacrifice, and someone willing to look beyond his own interests and into the best interest of his constituency/state/country. If they complain about having to be open about their bank accounts and actions they take while they hold a major public office, then this tells me they aren't personally ready for the price they'll have to be to wield that power.
6) Which should have more influence on the government – the media, factions, interest groups, or political parties? Why?
The media should have no influence on the government, except as a level of information about current attitudes that isn't binding. You can read a little bit about a culture based on the media it displays, but there's nothing solid about it.
Partisan politics, so the factions and political parties, are a flawed system. Some say it gives you a choice between one set of rules and another, but that's a little bit of a joke - ultimately, you're choosing one electioneer over another electioneer. What you want to do is elect individual contractors who will carry out the job they say they will (not necessarily a full platform, more like just taking care of one problem), and when the job is finished, they can apply for another. If you think of all the energy, money and resources each party spends on fighting itself and the other party and applied that to dealing with the problems we have today, how much would get done? Realistically, there will always be fighting and an amount of lost resources, but we want to keep this to a minimum. How many millions did Obama and Clinton spend fighting each other for the election? What about McCain and Palin, for electioneering just themselves? Wouldn't you rather research someone qualified and vote for them rather than people who elevate themselves to the limelight and spend billions on ferrying themselves around and repeating the same message over and over again to the multitudes?
Interest groups, on the other hand, should exist mostly as an appeal to the government to bring problems in a certain sector to government attention and reveal the level of difficulty or danger in the problem they face. There should be no personal glory in politics.
7) “Certainly, Gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinions high respect; their business unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasure, his satisfactions, to theirs – and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own” (Edmund Burke). Is he right about politicians today? Why or why not?
No, for the reasosn I've explained in question 4. This is an example of idealized posturing, where they will tell you this is what they're doing, but their actions rarely match their words. Ideally, this would be nice, but you'll never find more than one exemplar of this, if you even find that one, so expecting each man to be exactly like that won't work. On the other hand, it does make a good goal to strive towards, even in the understanding that it will never be fully realized. Word for word, it is a little flawed, but the spirit is that one who holds public office cannot place his own interests above his constituents, and one who does doesn't deserve the office he has.
The problem here is that most offices are stepping stones to higher offices and echelons, so because they are only inhabited for the short term, people who hold them are willing to sacrifice the integrity of their office for personal gain, with the full understanding that they will be transferred somewhere new to operate again somewhere later.
There is a lot to cover in this question, and I've barely touched the surface, but I apologize for not having time to go in depth into all of these things.
8) Should the United States adopt a national referendum process that allows citizens to directly vote on important policies? Why or why not?
No. The american public is a bull being led by the horn. The farmer does things for the betterment of the bull, which the bull may not necessarily understand. To have faith in the American public is to allow the whims of millions to decide their fate.
If you were to hold a national referendum, the key is to be selective abuot it. Have a test of eligibility (based on understanding the issue and the choices available in the referendum) that requires a certain level of understanding of the problem being faced and the consequences of the solutions. Whoever passes the test (it's not meant to be difficult, it simply outlines all the details of what's being voted on) can vote in the referendum. Most would call this undemocratic (I guess they'd be right), but a few informed votes are worth more in the long run than a lot of easily swayed, uninformed votes.
9) “It is hard to explain the place filled by political concerns in the life of an American. To take a hand in the government of society and to talk about it is his most important business and, so to say, the only pleasure he knows” (Alexis DeTocqueville). Is this true today? Why or why not? Does it matter if people refuse to participate in the political system? Why or why not?
Participation in the political system is extremely important, but this isn't how it operates today. People much prefer to not have to make important decisions for themselves, and get others to make the right ones for them - it's a security thing. The majority of people, especially the working class, has no real understanding of how politics works and what needs to be done and why things that appear to hurt the working class will eventually help them, and most certainly vice versa.
It does matter if they take part, because it is only through their blessing that the politicians have their power in the first place. To invest someone with that much control over your life and then completely ignore everything they do (until their act inconvenience you) is a foolish thing to do. It's about doing better for yourself by acting to change the environment you live in for the better.
