Federalist Paper #9

     The peace and liberty of the states as well as a defense from domestic rebellions can best be protected by a strong union. By studying history several concepts have been found, perhaps unknown to the ancients, that create a republican government allowing liberty to flourish:

1. distribution of power into distinct branches
2. legislative checks and balances
3. a court system 
4. a legislature with representatives elected by the People
5. a way to correct or avoid imperfection

     Montesquieu recommended small territories for a republic to work - smaller than our individual states. Accepting his idea would mean dividing the nation into many small, jealous, clashing, disorderly states. However, he suggested a way to accommodate the larger size by combining the best of a monarchy with the best of a republic by forming a 'confederate republic.' This assemblage of several smaller states into a new society capable of adding new states supplies security to the entire group. This form of republic should be self protecting from internal corruption, rebellion, and faction as well, by the simple fact that it would be difficult to gain overall support from more than a small geographical area.
     The Constitution would make the states part of the national government by giving them representation in the senate and leaving certain important powers in their hands.

Part 3: A republic if you can keep it

     A representative democracy gives the decision making ability to elected officials, but maintains control through the right to vote. Publius explained that the Constitution established a representative government not a democracy.  He also stated that maintaining a true republic would be difficult and require a constant watch over the balance of powers between the national and state governments by the citizens. The papers stressed that the states are to retain powers that the Federal Government cannot change or affect, and even though today our states seem to be almost useless appendages in the Federal Government, they were to be essential parts of the Constitution.  

     There are those that believe it is the government's place to create eternal peace and harmony among its citizens. Madison understood that faction is natural and a consequence of liberty. He worked at creating a government that kept this in mind to benefit society, and a republic can best control groups from having too much control. Republics historically had failed and Madison was convinced it would work in America because of its size. With larger numbers it would be much harder for specific groups to gain enough power to make real changes, and actually, time has shown the difficulty in any one party maintaining a permanent governing majority.

     Federalist Papers #52 - 77 explain how the seats of power are formed and operate as well as what powers they have and how they are checked and balanced. The House of Representatives displays a more republican approach with a representation of the people, whereas the Senate provides an equal representation of each state, bringing federalism into play (however, this has changed with the addition of the 17th amendment). Madison also pointed out that the leaders would have to play by all the same rules as everyday citizens. Unlike republics of history they would receive no special treatment. Although, I think they do receive special treatment - consider how they do no have to participate in Obama Care.

     Finally, in order for the Constitution to work as the founders planned, it was assumed the people would always be involved in public debate and understand what was going on in order to hold their leaders accountable. One can only hope that the general population will once again become involved and  do their research and truly understand what is going on instead of simply going by what sounds or looks good.

Federalist Paper #51

     Government must be able to control the governed, but it must also control itself. The primary control will be its dependence on the people, but other precautions will be necessary. Maintaining the necessary separation between the branches of government will be handled by the very relationship each branch has to the other and will keep them within their designated limits. Each branch will have a will of its own with the individual members playing as small a role as possible in the appointment of the other branches. The exception to this rule might be the Judicial Branch. Since each member must have unique qualifications and is appointed for life they would not be depending on the authority that appointed them.
     Each branch must not depend on the other branches for their salary and they must be equally allowed to defend itself to avoid the risk of being attacked or attacking another branch. The goal is to divide and arrange the departments to be able to check the other.
     The Legislative Branch is naturally going to be the strongest. In order to lesson that difference it will be divided and separated. Each group will have differing methods of election as well as having its own distinct powers and procedures. With the division and natural strengths of this branch comes the natural weakness of the executive branch which will have to be strengthened.
     Further protection from abuses of power is attained by separating state and federal governments and also by having many different types of citizens within the society making it difficult to combine together for the sake of oppressing others. As the Union becomes more diverse and with additional states being added, security for the rights of every class of citizen is increased under the republican form of government.

Federalist Papers #41-44

     Here's a summary of the goals of the governmental powers divided into categories as quoted from "The Original Argument":

1. Defense against foreign danger; (#41)
2. The regulation of commerce and diplomacy with foreign nations; (#42)
3. Maintaining harmony and proper interaction between the states; (#42)
4. Various things that are generally useful; (#43)
5. Restraining the states from certain harmful actions; (#44)
6. Making sure that all of these powers are employed effectively. (#44)

Federalist Paper #44

     James Madison continues his examination of the powers granted to the National Government with a discussion of the Constitution's restriction of state authority over the Federal Government. The individual states are not allowed to form treaties, alliances, or confederations. This provision was also in the Ariticles of Confederation.
     The states would no longer have the right to coin money. This would eliminate the great variety of possible designs and weights of coins, as well as the many expensive mints necessary for individual states. States are also denied the ability to substitute paper money for coin. This would create too many different currencies and values obstructing interstate commerce, arousing hostilities, and possibly dragging foreign countries into a conflict caused by a single state.
     A constitutional safeguard was added to protect personal security and private rights by prohibiting Bills of Attainder and ex post facto laws. Also, a ban on titles of nobility was copied from the Articles of Confederation. And the states are not allowed to lay imposts or duties on imports or exports, except where necessary for executing its inspection laws.
     The last group of powers given to the Federal Government simply allows it to make all the other powers effective. Without this power the whole Constitution would be worthless. It also binds the judges in every state to anything in the Constitution. Without this we would have "a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members." Finally, all state and Federal officials are to be bound by oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, however, a similar oath is not required of the Federal officials with respect to the state constitutions because the Federal Government has no part in enforcing the state constitutions, but the state governments will play an essential role in enforcing the Federal Constitution.

Federalist Paper #43

     Discussions of the powers to be given to the Federal Government continue in this paper with several miscellaneous powers:

1. States are unable to adequately protect the rights of authors and inventors, therefore that power is granted to the Federal Government. This logically is compatible with the public good, both as a protection and an encouragement to continued inventions.
2. The seat of the Federal Government (Washington D.C.) is to be separate and exempt from any state control and also limited in size. The same authority over forts, magazines, etc. by the Federal Government is also necessary, however agreement must be reached with the proposed state that such things are to be located. (They seemed to have a greater fear of a state controlling the Federal Government rather than vice-versa.)
3. Congress is granted power to declare punishment of treason. The Constitution wisely does not define the crime, but instead what is required to prove it and obtain a conviction
4. Rules for admitting new states to the U.S. were added by the Convention to improve on the Articles of Confederation which had none. No new states can be formed without agreement of the Federal Government and the states involved. And new states cannot be formed by splitting a larger state nor by combining two existing smaller ones. (This one got a little heated prior to the Civil War)
5. Powers to govern territories that are not yet states are included.
6. Each state, as well as the Federal Government is required to maintain a republican form of government. They are allowed to alter it as long as it remains a republic. Protection from both foreign and domestic hostility is also guaranteed. 
7. The Convention wanted to make clear that even with the new political structure of the Constitution any and all previous debts of the U.S. would be honored. 
8. Providing a way to amend the Constitution was included. The process laid out protects it from being changed too easily, but also makes it possible to correct errors or faults from continuing on forever.
9. The conclusion of the paper simply explains that ratification of the Constitution can be acomplished with the approval of 9 of the 13 states. This is to keep one single state from having the power to stop what the remainder want. (Unanimous decisions are hard to come by.)

Federalist Paper #42

     James Madison discusses the country's relationship with foreign nations, both in commerce and diplomacy. The Constitution improved on the Articles of Confederation by not allowing individual states to regulate treaties, and it gives the Federal Government the power to not only appoint and receive ambassadors, but lower ranking officials as well.
     Another improvement the Constitution made gives the Federal Government the power to punish piracy and other felonies on the high seas, and enforce international law, keeping individual states from getting the whole country in trouble with foreign nations. States are not given the power to regulate trade from state to state, and only the Federal Government has the authority to coin and regulate money.
     In this paper James Madison is quite clear on his desire to abolish slavery. He is disappointed they were unable to stop the slave trade before 1808, but hoped during that 20 year period the Federal Government would possibly be able to abolish slavery altogether. Of course, we know that didn't happen, but we do know a good many of the founders were against slavery. With the heavily economic dependence on slavery for some of the states and the general acceptance of it at the time it is understandable why they didn't press for abolition to be included in the Constitution. If they would have made it a requirement, ratification probably would NEVER have happened, leaving our country vulnerable to be overtaken and lost.

Federalist Paper #41

     There are 2 ways to examine the Constitution: the amount of power, and how that power is distributed. In deciding how much power the federal government should have it must be decided if any of the powers are unnecessary or improper and whether these powers threaten the sovereignty left to the states. Is the power necessary for the public good? If so, how best can we guard against that power being used against the public good? Madison goes into detail describing that security against foreign danger is one of the most basic, essential goals along with the power to collect and borrow money to provide those securities. Opponents to the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States" feared unlimited permission to the government. (Even though it appears that today those opponents may have been correct, it must be remembered that it was NOT the original intent of the Constitution nor the founders that wrote it.) In defense of the "to raise money for the general welfare" clause Madison argues that the opponents' fear of interpreting such a phrase in ridiculous ways (which I think has been done) is basically silly. Madison's final sentence: "How difficult it is for error to escape its own condemnation." is in the process of coming true, but hopefully it is not too late.

Federalist Paper #37

     Public policy is rarely examined in a calm, rational manner and determining whether something is good or bad for the public good is often not the question. Opponents to a given policy will condemn it applying predetermined biases, and likewise a supporter will approve it without full examination. The Federalist Papers were not written for either of those groups, but for those that were sincerely passionate for the happiness of their country and also capable of discerning the best way to go about it.
     In writing the Constitution the Constitutional Convention took into consideration the problems with the existing government and tried to improve upon it. The difficulties included providing for a necessarily stable, energetic government with infrangible principles of liberty. The Convention's conclusions came about without party hostilities and all the representatives were either pleased with the final result or convinced to sacrifice their own private opinions and interests for the sake of the public good.
     Perhaps it's because I have my own preconceived biases, but in today's politics we have those that give reasonable arguments and information to back up their stance as Publius did, and we have those that tell them they need to compromise (perhaps a little more than compromise), or the world will end as we know it. Apparently, I am not in the group of people the Federalist Papers would have been aimed at; hopefully, the reasonable arguments and information of today will reach the same type of people Publius was successful at reaching.

Federalist Paper #23

     In order to provide a "common defense" the federal government needs the ability to raise armies, build and equip fleets, regulate and direct their operations and provide support to them (financial and otherwise). Hamilton felt these powers should have no limit since it is impossible to predict future national emergencies. Therefore, there should not be a lot of constitutional restrictions in dealing with the "common defense and general welfare" but the federal government should not be allowed to pass the buck (so to speak) to the states either, requiring quotas and requisitions from them. The federal government needed to have its responsibilities (national security being probably the most important) spelled out, but it also needed to be given the power and ability to carry them out.

     The founders desired to grant full power to the government to do its jobs well, but those jobs must also be defined well in order to prevent it from having too much power in areas it has no business. The federal government encroaching on state and local authorities is far too common today. By stretching the meaning of "common defense and general welfare" and other phrases modern governmental agencies (that probably shouldn't exist in the first place) are able to convince decision makers somehow that if Farmer John kills a pocket gopher for example our "general welfare" somehow suffers. 

Part 2 The Great Compromise

     In Glenn Beck's introduction to the the next section he points out that tyranny, not freedom is man's natural state of government. Without a strong force such as our Constitution to protect individual rights, tyranny will return. We must be careful not to equate the Constitution with government. The Constitution not only protects us from the tyrannical individual but also from government itself. Remember, the government is not our "protector."

     The public at the time of the Federalist Papers was wary of handing over their newly, hard won freedoms to anyone, which was why the Articles of Confederation were not binding on the individual states making each state its own entity. Publius knew how necessary it was to unite the states in order to protect our freedoms. Unfortunately, even with a strong Constitution our government is ever so gradually heading toward the natural state of tyranny by stretching the boundaries of its powers. 

     The founders understood by studying history that neither monarchies which assume there is a perfect, wise ruler, nor utopias which assume man is perfect would result in the type of government they fought so hard for. They wanted balanced power with each branch watching over the other and the people watching over it all with the primary roll of government to simply protect our liberties and rights so that we can 'pursue' happiness.

     It is interesting to note that there were many compromises made during the writing of the Constitution. Then, as now, government moved slowly and issues such as slavey, which many of the founders opposed and believed to be inhumane, had to be postponed. Insisting on its abolition would have ultimately meant no constitution and no union. Sometimes, as the founders understood, very important issues must be postponed or there is no chance of a solution.

 

Federalsist Paper #85

     In Hamilton's final paper he made one last appeal for the ratification of the Constitution pointing out that he had tried to stay rational and reasonable in his arguments avoiding emotional responses and typical political rhetoric. (Modern politicians could sure learn a lesson from that!) He reiterates that the Constitution was not perfect, but it was good and probably the best that could be done under the circumstances of the times (perhaps any time). Because it was not perfect, the allowance for amendments had been made, and adding them in the future would be more easily accomplished. Making those changes before ratification would actually make it a new document that would have to be approved by each state. Whereas after ratification, amendments could be added with the approval of just nine states. Also, the original Constitution had many specific details and provisions making it difficult to accommodate everyone. It had to be written in a way that all parties would agree. Future amendments would be dealing with a single proposal - political maneuvering and compromise would not be necessary.  Glenn Beck reminds us that through this amendment process we have been able to fix some of the original problems (i.e. slavery, women's suffrage, not to mention the Bill of Rights).
     Hamilton's final point is that a nation must have a national government. Writing the Constitution during a time of peace with the time to develop it properly, rather than during a time of turmoil when decisions are made in haste, and with the voluntary consent of the people is a miracle. (And just one more reason why it is what it is and so important that we follow and restore the proper balance of power that was spelled out in it).
   

Federalist Paper #11

     At the time these papers were written, the existing power nations were a little nervous of America's adventurous commercial character realizing what it was capable of, especially if it formed a decent Navy. Those nations would be rooting for America's division in order to stay on top in the commercial world. A Federal Navy would benefit the country, not only for protection, but also in influencing commercial relations with other nations. A strong navy would not be possible without remaining united. As a strong, united nation our friendship, or at least neutrality, would be greatly desired, influencing our abilities to trade in a favorable manner with other nations. Without that power we would be taken advantage of commercially, being forced to accept others' prices and tariffs, most likely losing profits. We would no doubt lose our adventurous spirit, be disgraced, and end in poverty.
     The ideas in this paper are as relevant today as they were at the time. By borrowing money we are losing our control having to bow down to others (China). Without keeping our military strong we can be easily taken advantage of, both politically and commercially.
   
 

Federalist Paper #2

     Will the American People be better protected as one nation or as several separate confederacies? This is the question that had to be answered and the people had to be fully convinced that whatever was decided was based on sound policy. It was argued that it was obvious that we should stay together as one country - we are a connected country blessed with a variety of natural resources and industries and had a common background with a similar culture, religion, etc. and had fought together for the same liberty and independence. Our country was not made up of distant, detached territories and people.
     The men writing the Constitution were well respected men with the confidence of the people and were not distracted by power or influence, but focused by love of country. Today, the division of our people in its goals and ways of thinking as well as allowing our leaders to slip away from sound policy and be distracted by power and influence is definitely destroying our great nation. John Jay's final quote from Shakespeare could be a bit of prophesy: "Farewell! A Long farewell, to all my greatness."

Federalist Paper #1

Hamilton was greatly concerned that local politicians would fight the Constitution because they were afraid of losing their existing power. The way he described them makes me think of politicians today (I guess they haven't changed much). He warns against those that put too much emphasis on "people's rights." I think of overly done equal rights laws, healthcare, and other social and environmental issues that sound good, but cause many problems. Those that push this agenda are more often than not using it only as a smoke screen to hide their own selfish power seeking agenda.

Part One: A New Order for the Ages

Because the delegates were originally sent to Philadelphia with the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation and came back with an entirely new governmental plan and a new Constitution they had a lot of justifying to do. The Federalists could have threatened the people with all kinds of consequences should the Constitution fail to be ratified. Instead they took the calm, logical approach (not done today too often) and addressed each of the legitimate objections, explaining why this was the best alternative. Publius argued in a civil tone avoiding personal attacks. He was trying to bring the country together, not divide and conquer (what a concept!). It was made clear that this document was being debated and recommended, not forced on the people.

Politicians by definition are a dividing force in society. Throughout our history our unity comes from our common values and virtues (which seem to be not so common anymore) not our politicians. Many of our values and virtues are voiced in our Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. Unity in Europe was different from our unity. It often came from royalty - all bowed before the king. Other forms of country unity comes from other forms of force.

Our system is by no means perfect, and the Constitution was almost not given a chance for that very reason. The sinful nature of imperfect man makes it impossible to create a perfect system, but if we hold true to our core principles petty partisan squabbles can be dealt with.

Continued Ruminations: Glenn Beck's intro

Can man govern himself, intelligently choosing his own form of government without force? This was (and perhaps still is) the question going on at the time of the proposed Constitution. Like today, there were two very opposing sides, the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists." The latter were skeptical that the republic would fail and the larger states would have more power, or even the presidency could turn into another monarchy. However, the Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government enough power, leaving the prospect of a crumbling government ripe for a take over, possibly by something much worse than the British king. Alexander Hamilton realized this and even though he personally supported a stronger government than the new Constitution allowed he also understood it was about as good as it was going to get. He enlisted James Madison and John Jay to help him write a series of letters to help convince those opposing the Constitution to change their minds. These letters became known as the "Federalist Papers."

Today these papers help us to understand the main principles of why the founding fathers included what they did in our Constitution:

• Why smaller government is better
• The differences between state and federal powers
• The best organization and operation of government and how to prevent another monarchy

Many of the arguments are only relevant to that time period, but many of the truths included apply to today just as much as it did then. These letters were public and available to everyone, so it can be assumed that the delegates voting to ratify the Constitution agreed with these truths. Even the Anti-Federalists were convinced that this was the best way to go.

Ruminations while reading Glenn Beck's The Original Argument

For my first attempt at blogging I have decided to record my thoughts as I read Glenn Beck's latest book:

Joshua Charles, a recent college graduate, took it upon himself to rewrite the Federalist Papers in modern English so that Joe Average American could understand and maybe even enjoy reading them. He joined forces with Glenn Beck to complete the book, allowing for more notoriety and publicity.