| |
|
The Federalist Papers
Paul Weinstein
Dr. Lindburg
Pol-309-01
4/2/96
The Federalist Papers are a collection of articles written by Publius in 1787 and 1788 to the people of New York. In these articles, Publius argues for a strong, central government. This limited, republic as it is established by the Constitutional Convention of 1787. The first of these articles defines and explains the need for a republic. The following articles are connected by the fact that they, in detail, explain the workings of this republic.
Federalist Paper number 10, by Publius, states that a democracy, or majority rule is not the way to rule or for a government to run.
The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been moral diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished.
"Popular Governments" or democracies fail, in part, because of majority rule. They create instability and confusion, impart because popular leads and feelings change. These passions should not rule. However, one cannot just "be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political [civil] life." Majority rule runs by passions, passions that can be dangerous, and
as long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed.
Again, however, we just cannot remove people's liberty.
The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.
The goal of government is to control the passions and infalliblities of men, without giving up the liberties of the men. A democracy runs on passions so it does not always control passionate, fallible people. Nor does it control itself, the second goal of government. A republic, however can reach these two goals.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: First, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; Secondly, the greater number of citizens, a greater sphere of country, one which the latter may be extended.
The republic, in other words, has representatives that run the government, and make the important decisions, not a majority. Second this allows for more people to reside in the country, because there would no be more factions, as would be in a majority ruled government. This would make an effective government. To do this, one must define and create a model from which to work from. The beginning of this model is set in paper number ten. First, with the justification that this government be a republic. Second, with the start of how that republic will work. "...however small a republic maybe, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of the few; and that, however large it maybe, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of the multitude," which is what can happen in a democracy. Paper Ten ends with this:
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it.
Our "extended republic", or Union will be better, because of its base of republican ideals.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy...
Paper Thirty-Nine picks up with this question: "What, then. are the distinctive characters of the republican form?" One must now define this republican form we are planning on using.
It is sufficient for such a government that the persons administering it be appointed, either directly or indirectly, by the people; and that they hold their appointments be either of the tenures just specified
This is how we define a republic. In fact this is how most states in the Union already run their governments, This is sufficient also because "otherwise every government in the United States...would degrade from the republican character. This would mean that we would not even have a working model to base this new government off of. However, the state governments do work well as republics. This form of government is in "the constitution of every state in the Union," where "the Chief Magistrate himself is so appointed...This mode of appointment is extended to [at least one] of the coordinate branches of the legislative...the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the form tenure of good behavior." So the constitutions of the Thirteen States that make up the Union are indeed a republican form over government. So why not use this model to form the new government? Where the Houses of Representatives, like that of one branch, at least, of all the state legislative, is elected immediately by the great body of the people. Also the, "Senate, like the present Congress, and the Senate of Maryland, derives its appointments indirectly from the people." The Chief Magistrate or "President is indirectly derived from the choice of the people, according to the example in most of the states. Even the judges with all other offices of the Union, will, as in the several states, be the choice, of the people themselves." Where "the duration of the appointments is equally conformable to the republican standard." Publius here goes on comparing the United States Constitution to that of the respective states as it deals with the elections of those representatives. In only one respect does it differ.
In several of the states, however no constitutional provision is made for the impeachment of the Chief Magistrate. And in Delaware and Virginia he is not impeachable till out of office. The President of the United States is impeachable at any time during his continuance in office.
Could any further proof be required of the republican complexion of this system, [if so] the most decisive one might be found in its absolute prohibition of titles of nobility, both under the federal and the states' governments; and in its express guaranty of the republican form to each of the latter.
Now Publius starts to answer "adversaries of the proposed Constitution." In fact the rest of the papers, the details of this working government, are defending how this government is set up. These "Anti-Federalist" argue that the Constitution "framed a national government, which regards the Union as a consolidation of thee States." The worry is that the "Confederacy of Sovereign States" will be destroyed, removing the powers of each state. Publius argues "That it will be a federal and not national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors; the act of the people, as forming so many independent state, not as forming one aggregate nation, is obvious from this singe consideration: that is id to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people of the Union, not from that of a majority of the states." In fact, "it must result from the unanimous assent of the several [all of the] states that are parties to it."
This means that,
Each state, in ratifying the Constitution, is considered as a sovereign body, independent of all others, and only to be bound by its own voluntary act. In this relation, then the new Constitution will, if established, be a federal, and not a national Constitution.
The new government, with the powers it is given will be a federal government, because these powers are given as a voluntary act. However, when acting on these powers it will be a national government. So that "the proposed Constitution, therefore, is in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both." This means that the states will still have many of their own powers, and can still act on their own accord. Only in selected areas, defined in the new Constitution, will the new federal government act on. These powers given freely to this government so that in some areas can be worked on for the common good of the United States. A limited, federal republic has now been defined. The only thing that is left is the details and workings of that government.
The powers of this Federal Government are to be separated into three branches. An Executive branch, where the President resides. A Legislative branch where the Congress, made up of the House of Representatives and Senate, reside. Finally, the Judicial branch, where the Supreme Court will be. This brings us to papers Fifty-Two to Fifty-Five, Sixty-Two, Sixty-Three, Seventy to Seventy-Two, and Seventy-Eight, among others, where the works of the government are explained and defended. That the government should be a separation, "the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may. by their mutual relations be means of keeping each other in their proper places." The development of these ideas play out to "checks and balances" as it is often called, where "the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others." This being separation of powers, and "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consist in giving to those who administer each department the necessary motives to resist encroachments of the others."
Our model of government now is a federal, republic, where three equal separate, but connected departments execute the role of government as needed and explained in the United States Constitution. Congress is to be elected to office, where the House of Representatives is "from biennial elections" and elected directly from the people. The Senate every six years, elected from the House of Representatives. Judges for the Supreme Court are in office for as long as "good behavior."
All of these are connections to the ideas started in the Federalist Paper number Ten. A republic, with limited powers given voluntary of the States, with representatives elected directly, or indirectly to office.
|
|
|
| |
Today you hear much talk of absolutes ... that one is good and one is evil, and good and evil cannot exist in the world... Good and evil have existed in this world since [creation].
The proper search is for limited ends which soon enough educate us in the complexities of the tasks which face us. That is what all of us must learn to do in the United States; to limit objectives, to get ourselves away from the search for the absolute, to find out what is within our powers.... We must respect our opponents. We must understand that for a long, long period of time they will continue to believe as they do, and that for a long, long period of time we will both inhabit this spinning ball in the great void of the universe.
-Dean Acheson
|
|
|
