Exam #3, Problem One: Checks and Balances Amongst the Anti-Federalist Papers, there are at least three arguments against the proposed checks and balances system. At the very beginning of these papers, Centinel quickly introduces the first of them. The author defines the thought of the system as proposed by Adams. He then argues that the system would only work in a society with hereditary orders. His example: the British have such orders, creating real distinctions of rank and interests. Even in this system, according to Centinel, the only “operative and efficient check” is the sense of the masses. It can be argued that event without the “hereditary orders,” a distinction of interests can be found and were discussed in several papers. Interests will vary from state to state, from the rural farmers to the businessmen of the cities. These distinctions were discussed in Federalist No. 10 as factions. While the hierarchy of such interests is not related to nobility as found in England, a faction is defined here as a number of citizens who are united and motivated by common interests adverse to the rights of other citizens or to the interests of the community. It is proposed that there are only two methods of curing the adverse effects of factions: by removing its causes or by controlling its effects. The intent of the proposed system of checks and balances seeks to cure selfish interest by the latter. Power to any one person or branch would be limited by the other branches, preventing any person, branch, or faction from gaining an excess amount of power and leverage towards their own interests rather than the collective interests of the people. Powers of the government are discussed at length in many papers on both sides. The Anti-Fede... ... middle of paper ... ...and push their own agendas regardless of the views of the masses. Like the previous argument, this one can be countered with Federalist No. 51. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary.” The government is a creation of the people and the only power is derived from the masses. Without the faith of the people, both the government and union could fall to ruin. The checks and balances system allows the government to regulate itself against encroachment and the creation of such factions described in Federal Farmer 3. While each branch is accountable to each other, should a faction be created within the government with ill intent, they will be held accountable to the people. If those that act against the will of the masses are not removed from office, the government will have to answer to the people, their main source of power. Ambition will counter ambition.
In conclusion this is why tyranny and federalism, separation of power, checks and balances and big and small states all mean that they are important to know also the branches are a big part especially in the separation of
On September 28, 1787 Confederation Congress sent out the draft of the Constitution. This was the first time in history for the people to debate, discuss, and decide with a vote for how they wanted to be governed. There were two groups that debated the thought of the Constitution. They were called Federalists and anti-Federalists.
This party developed because of the ratification of the constitution process; one way the Federalists tried to persuade people that their views were right about a strong central government during the ratification process was through several articles, which became known as The Federalist Papers. The Federalists argued that the people needed a strong central government to keep order and protect the union (Doc 1). They believed that this form of government was needed because the Articles of Confederation was proof that the union needed a strong central government. They argued that the Articles of Confederation gave the central government too little power and as a result the Union, faced economic difficulties, foreign problems and state quarrels (Doc 3). They processed Checks and Balances, which was a system designed so that the central government would not get more powerful than the other would, and was intended to counter arguments being made by the Anti-federalists (Doc
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers played a major role in US History. They dealt with many problems in politics. The papers were made after the Revolutionary war. People started to worry that the government would not last under the Articles of Confederation. Without having a backup plan just yet, some delegates met up and created the Constitution. The constitution had to be ratified before it became the rule of all the land. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers discuss whether the constitution should be approved or not. Some things Anti-Federalist and Federalists argued was a strong national government, a standing army, and whether or not the constitution should be ratified and why.
Eric Foner claims the definition of Federalism refers to the relationship between the national government and the states. Unlike the Constitution, the Articles of Confederation came with many weaknesses. Some provided by our powerpoint include that the Federal government had no power to make the states obey the Articles and laws that were passed by the legislature. The states also had the power to tax, and the opportunity to print their own money. Our powerpoint focuses on the $10 million Congress owed to other countries, as well as the $40 million it owed to the American veterans. The Constitution differed. Foner states that not only did the Constitution enhance national authority, but it also permitted Congress to levy taxes, conduct commerce, confirm war, deal with the foreign nations and Indians, and rent and help the “general welfare”. According to the powerpoint, Federalists focused on the weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation.
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
In today 's government political parties are a large part of government operations and how decisions are made in the government. In Madison 's The Federalist, No.10 Madison talked about how factions can control and cause harm to the government. A solution to this control was the use of a republic in order to limit the power of factions and keep them from having complete control. In our government however, factions have become a major part of the government system with political parties having complete control over the different branches of government. The use of this two political party system creates many problems within our government as the two parties fight for control over legislature and control over the government. Despite using a republic system as Madison mentions in his paper, factions continue to control and affect our government today. Madison 's views on government branches also affects our government today. Our government being in branches does help our government from being affected by corruption by each branch being independent from each other. These independent branches help prevent corruption by each branch having independent leadership and control and not being affected by the views of each other. At the same time these branches having unique views and control can lead to problems as the branches of government may not be able to interact properly with
The Constitution, when first introduced, set the stage for much controversy in the United States. The two major parties in this battle were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists, such as James Madison, were in favor of ratifying the Constitution. On the other hand, the Anti-Federalists, such as Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee, were against ratification. Each party has their own beliefs on why or why not this document should or should not be passed. These beliefs are displayed in the following articles: Patrick Henry's "Virginia Should Reject the Constitution," Richard Henry Lee's "The Constitution Will Encourage Aristocracy," James Madison's "Federalist Paper No. 10," and "The Letters to Brutus." In these documents, many aspects of the Constitution, good and bad, are discussed. Although the Federalists and Anti-Federalists had very conflicting views, many common principals are discussed throughout their essays. The preservation of liberty and the effects of human nature are two aspects of these similarities. Although the similarities exist, they represent and support either the views of the Federalists or the Anti-Federalists.
The Independent Journal published the first Federalist essay in 1787, closely following the Constitutional Convention. This was one of 85 essays that were all soon published in support of the Constitution. The essays were all published under the alias name “Publius.” All essays were compiled into a single volume titled The Federalist Papers. The Federalist Papers is considered a significant illustration of American political philosophy under the Articles of Confederation, which were adopted by the Continental Congress. The Articles set up the first legislative system that unified the thirteen states that battled in the American Revolution. A major theme that was discussed in the essays centers around the idea that the United States could not continue to endure under the Articles of Confederation and the weaknesses that accompany it. The Articles gave states the authority to create their own laws, however they were unsuccessful in creating a strong government. The essay suggested that immediate action be taken to prevent the impending anarchy that would ensue under these Articles.
The dangers of faction can somewhat outweigh the good. The framers of the American Constitution feared the power that could possibly come about by organized interest groups. Madison wrote "The public good is disregarded in the conflict of rival factions citizens who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." However, the framers believed that interest groups thrived because of freedom, the same privilege that Americans utilize to express their views. Madison saw direct democracy as a danger to individual rights and advocated a representative democracy to protect individual liberty, and the general public from the effects of such inequality in society. Madison says "A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."
Continuing the metaphor of faction as a disease, Madison labels “[a] republic” as “the cure for which we are seeking”. Madison notes that a republican government differs from pure democracy in that the delegation of the government is smaller and can thus achieve efficient action. Another contrast lies also in the extent to which a republic has influence over a “greater sphere of country”. The passing of public views “through the medium of a chosen body of citizens” allows for refinement of ideas due to the influence of elected officials’ wisdom and is “more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves”. To protect against the caprices of wicked men, the number of representatives of the people will be a quantity that stymies the influence of the few but is able to, as Madison states, “guard against the confusion of a multitude”. Madison then references his belief in the common sense and good will of men in that “the suffrages of the people” is likely to result in the election of men most deserving and fit for their roles as representatives and lawmakers. Madison presents an avowal that counters one of the Anti-Federalists’ major grievances: “[t]he federal Constitution forms a happy combination” with “the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures”; Anti-Federalists feared that a stronger
Following the failure of the Articles of Confederation, a debate arose discussing how a centralized government ought to be organized. The prevailing opinion ultimately belonged to the Federalists, whose philosophy was famously outlined in The Federalist Papers. Recognizing that in a free nation, man would naturally divide himself into factions, they chose not to remedy this problem by stopping it at its source; instead, they would limit its effects by placing strict structural safeguards within the government's framework. The Federalists defined a facti...
...he part of the constitution which says that the national government may keep an army in peacetime is a flaw the Anti-Federalists saw in the constitution which could be used in a constitutional debate today. It could also be said the national government possesses too much power the state governments. The national government has authority over state governments and its laws are higher laws than state laws.
Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused.
Those who feared that the federal government would become too strong were assured by Madison in Federalist No. 14 that “in the first place it is to be remembered that the general government is not to be charged with the whole power of making and administrating laws…The subordinate governments, which can extend their care to all those other objects which can be separately provided for, will retain their due authority and activity”