Why our Country is what it is.......

Federalism vs. Democracy

The United States of America is different and separate from any nation on the face of the Earth; no matter who we have as our leader as President the rules have been predestine by our US Constitution.  Power has been given to our central government to ensure that the individual states are protected in foreign matters, such as, treaties and Declarations of Wars, also the Defense of all states through military or Economic issues, and the distribution of Cash.

The Constitution is the law that has enabled the United States of America to avoid many catastrophes.

The origins of Democracy

Democracy is a form of government that translates literally from the Greek words demos (“the People”) and Kratia (“rule”), thus democracy means “People Rule”.

The Greeks first developed democracies in the 6^th century.  In 600 B.C., almost 2500 years ago Greek leadership arrived at a political philosophy that would allow all citizens the right on a political view to be heard.  In Greece all citizens could vote – this is great “you think?”  Here is the “But”, citizens did not include, I repeat, did not include minors (those under the age of consent), women (all women), and Slaves; any color or gender and in those days, if you owed anybody anything you were a slave, as to be “in Debt” meant to give up your citizenship.  So, all of you with credit cards, or car loans, and mortgages are slaves under the Greek system of Democracy, and, as such would not be able to be heard politically.  For the most part these non-citizens made up ninety percent (90%) of the population, which meant that Greece was ruled by only ten percent (10%) of the population.  By percentage for the most part the same still holds today in many countries that are democratic by nature in the world.

The downfall of Greek society is documented through history as a tragedy.  Because of greed and excessive spending, Greece and its democracy soon collapsed.  The lack of agreement, the instability of how a military force would be used, morality issues and a week economy attributed to the quick demise of a radiant culture.

Many years later and many political views later we arrive at the 1700’s.

A new world is born

The deep insight in history that the early leaders had serves to warn that history made should be limited in its mistakes and consequences.  Our first leaders of this nation, the United States of America, seemed to be much more intelligent in their views of politics and history than what we have as our representing leaders today; Or maybe just more patriotic and less greedy.  In the USA today an average twelfth grader cannot recite the importance of the founding father’s documents or let alone understand the severity of not knowing about our freedoms that were fought with the pen as well as the sword.  Our society has been allowed to grow, yet our education on such matters as relative liberties and freedoms have been dumbed-down allowing an onslaught of damning and profane injustices to be harpooned on our freedoms and rights.  These attacks and ambushes are so masked that it is happening from within the very walls that were put up to safeguard against a foreign enemy attack.  It is no wonder that our country is so easily uninformed by our media and unpatriotic liberal anti-American politicians.  The citizens of the USA have become so thin and feeble minded, its almost an amnesia that comes from their own greed and comfort, the United States of America is slowly loosing the very freedoms that were fought so hard for.

Our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, James Madison, George Washington and all others that fought so intently on our birth as a sovereign country, never had an intention of forming a true Democracy or “people rule”.  What they did have in mind was “We the people” – the central and individual states representing “the people” will rule with authority given to Our Constitution in order to form a more perfect union.  In other words, to do what no other form of government has done in history, and that is to provide and establish; Justice, Domestic tranquility, to provide for the “common” defense, Promote the general (not partial, particular, or local) welfare (not a welfare state for all) in order to secure the blessings of Liberty that get taken for granted everyday, not only for ourselves today, but also for years and generations of people and descendents to come.

Federalism, while being a form of democratic government is not a true democracy (people rule).

Under a Federalistic form of government, power is divided between a central government and several regional governments or states.  The United States of America is comprised, in today’s world, of fifty (50) individual states, but all report to our central government in Washington D.C.  The states maintain partial self-government or resend freedom and are linked to the web of the central government that is responsible for the concerns of all of the individual states.  The central governing body can dictate to a state certain rule and instruct the different individual states on how to rule on certain issues of disagreements.  In essence, if all of the states agree on certain laws or punishments for violations of a law the federal government or central government takes the matter into consider it a federal law through votes and legislation as to how the letter of the law is to read or what to include and who may be affected.

Individual states are responsible for matters and concerns to its individual citizens, of which makes up a form of central governing body for the many cities and counties within the states borders or jurisdiction.  State sovereignty is a main issue with the fifty -  (50) American states, by which the can govern themselves on most issues without help from the central governing body.  Sovereignty (governing itself) of a state originates from the ancient Roman Empire, but the United States is not a dictatorship or a monarchy form of government.

Our 1700’s leaders were very knowledgeable and systematic in the implementation of check and double check, just to make sure, so as to not make the same historical or philosophical mistakes that were made in politics gone by.

One of the political philosophies that played a roll in our federalist form of government was from a French statesman by the name of James Bodin.  James Bodin became a prominent figure in the Politique Party in France in the mid 1500’s.

An expert in law and political philosophy, Bodin wrote  “ The Six Books of the Republic” in 1566, in which he defines a Republic as, “[t] he lawful government of my families and of what is common to them, with sovereign power”.  Even though his views were to have a monarch as the supreme power of the subjects, Bodin fell out of Royal favor and was demoted to a minor post.  Bodin was on to something, because he also believed that in extreme cases of tyranny, rebellion might be justified, thus the sovereign could overthrow the supreme power through revolution.

One hundred (100) years later in the mid 1600’s, John Locke also articulated a theory of government along with Jean Jacques Rousseau in the 1700’s.  Locke’s’ theory is reflected in the “Declaration of Independence”, written by Thomas Jefferson, where Locke’s theories as an advocate for civil and religious liberties and denial of the “divine” right of kings to rule, arguing that government is based on the consent of the people”.  Because of his views, John Locke fled from England to Holland in 1683 out of fear that he would be tried for treason.

Jean Jacques Rousseau was also a political philosopher and a devout social critic.  His work “The Social Contract” written in 1762 emphasizes that politics and morality can never be separated in order that the individual can find happiness only in a social situation through progress and development of a moral sense.  The second principle is, freedom, which the state is created to preserve.  The state being the unity and as such expresses the general will of the individual.  This is contrasted by the will of all, which is merely the aggregate will, the accidentally mutual desires of the majority.  The general will is to secure freedom, equality, and justice within the state, regardless of the will of the majority.  Rousseau believed when a state fails to act in a moral fashion, it ceases to function in the proper manner and ceases to exert genuine authority over the individual.  We find a lot of these qualities in our US Constitution.  Rousseau wrote constitutions for the countries of Corsica and Poland.

In all modern federal systems the authority of the central and state governments is specified in a written constitution.  Conflicts that arise between the law of a constitution and the governing bodies must be resolved by a judicial authority such as the United States Supreme Court, which translates constitutional law to determine if any laws have been infringed or any rights of the citizens of the governing body have been violated.

After the Americans won the revolution the law of the land was the “Articles of Confederation”, which was a form of constitution that kept the status quo in the different colonies that had become states.  The states were sovereign, but were not united as a country as we know it today, citizens of a state were just that and not recognized as Americans but by their state name (like Virginians, Georgians, etc.).  Before our Constitution was ratified in 1887 “The Federalist Papers” were published in various New York newspapers, to sway voters to support a ratification of the constitution.  The thirteen (13) states were British colonies while under British rule, but after the revolt by the colonist there was some turmoil as to where they were going to from there.  The Federalist Papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay are a collection of 85 essays that were published in successive order in various New York newspapers spelling out what it would mean to have a ratified constitution and what effects it would have on the newly formed country.  The urging throughout the Federalist papers is the principle of pluralism, some say the these principles welcome diversity both for its own sake as a testimony to individual variety and freedom, but even more crucially for its positive effect on neutralizing conflicting passions and interests.

Of the 85 essays the first five are discussions and arguments as to how important it is to safeguard concerning the dangers from foreign force and influence.  Essay 2 interestingly provides a caution about the press and the power that the press or newsprint media as a non-political branch can wield.

John Jay wrote,

“It is not yet forgotten that well-grounded apprehensions of imminent danger induced the people of America to form the memorable Congress of 1774. That body recommended certain measures to their constituents, and the event proved their wisdom; yet it is fresh in our memories how soon the press began to teem with pamphlets and weekly papers against those very measures. Not only many of the officers of government, who obeyed the dictates of personal interest, but others, from a mistaken estimate of consequences, or the undue influence of former attachments, or whose ambition aimed at objects which did not correspond with the public good, were indefatigable in their efforts to pursuade the people to reject the advice of that patriotic Congress. Many, indeed, were deceived and deluded, but the great majority of the people reasoned and decided judiciously; and happy they are in reflecting that they did so”.

Federalist papers 6-8 deal with the consequences of hostilities between the states and the dissensions between the states.

 

Federalist papers 9 and 10 argue how a union would serve as a better government as a safeguard against domestic faction and insurrection.  Federalist 10 cuts to the heart of dealing with factions from within; Madison writes,

”A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking.  Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy, which it must derive from the Union.”

Madison also writes directly of what is meant by a faction in Federalist 10:

“By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”

Federalist papers 11-14 are arguments to the utility of a union in respect to: Commercial relations, a navy, Revenue and the economy, and the extent of the territory. To what extent they would mean for a union and for the political prosperity of the young America with foreign nations.

 

Essays 15-22 are more arguments to show the weakness of other forms of government, namely the present form that was a confederacy and the inefficiencies and defects of the present confederation to adequately preserve the union.

“THE examples of ancient confederacies, cited in my last paper, have not exhausted the source of experimental instruction on this subject. There are existing institutions, founded on a similar principle, which merit particular consideration. The first, which presents itself, is the Germanic body.

In the early ages of Christianity, Germany was occupied by seven distinct nations, who had no common chief. The Franks, one of the number, having conquered the Gauls, established the kingdom which has taken its name from them. In the ninth century Charlemagne, its warlike monarch, carried his victorious arms in every direction; and Germany became a part of his vast dominions. On the dismemberment, which took place under his sons, this part was erected into a separate and independent empire.  Charlemagne and his immediate descendants possessed the reality, as well as the ensigns and dignity of imperial power. But the principal vassals, whose fiefs had become hereditary, and who composed the national diets which Charlemagne had not abolished, gradually threw off the yoke and advanced to sovereign jurisdiction and independence. The force of imperial sovereignty was insufficient to restrain such powerful dependants; or to preserve the unity and tranquility of the empire. The most furious private wars, accompanied with every species of calamity, were carried on between the different princes and states. The imperial authority, unable to maintain the public order, declined by degrees till it was almost extinct in the anarchy, which agitated the long interval between the death of the last emperor of the Suabian, and the accession of the first emperor of the Austrian lines. In the eleventh century the emperors enjoyed full sovereignty: In the fifteenth they had little more than the symbols and decorations of power.”

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison- Federalist 19

Federalist paper 23 argues to a great extent for the necessity and, contains the evidence, for a form of government that is, “at least equally energetic” in including the people in the political process as the federal form of government being proposed to preserve the union effectively.

 

Federalist papers 24-29 argue for the powers necessary for the common defense for the United States of America, the concerns of a militia to thwart any foreign or domestic attacks, and the idea of restraining the legislative authority in regard to the common defense and why the common defense of a union would be far better than that of their current situation.

 

Federalist papers 30-36 contain explanations on taxation; the general powers thereof and matters of economy.

 

Federalist papers 37-51 get extra meticulous about the explanations and the difficulties the convention had in devising a proper form of government and the incoherence of the objections of the republican principles: how they are intertwined in the document to be our constitution and how the objections to the new plan are exposed.  Further stated are the explanations of how the plan must conform to republican principles and the powers of the convention to form a mixed form of government are examined and sustained.  The constitution and the authority that the constitution gives to the states conferred this general view of the powers.  These essays also deal with the restrictions on the authority of the states and the alleged dangers from the powers of the union to the state government are compared to the federal governments influence and the particular structure of the new government and the distribution of power among the different parts of the federal government.  Essays 48-49 discuss the departments and how they should not be so far separated as to have no constitutional control over each other and the method of guarding against the encroachments of any one department of government by appealing to the people through periodical conventions.  Essay 51 written by Madison is an astute argument that the structure of the government must furnish the proper checks and balances between the different federal government departments.

 

Excerpts from James Madison (Federalist 51) this is an argument for the different departments and branches of the federal government that exhausts the reality that we live in a corrupt and devious world.

“TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution?  The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places.”

“In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”

“In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other; at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure. There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable.”

Federalist papers 52-66 are an analysis of the House of Representatives, the total number that there should be and how Congress is to be split into two departments, the House of Representatives and the Senate and their election process.  This section also contains arguments for the alleged tendency of the new plan to elevate the few at the expense of the many considered in connection with Representation.  There were many arguments and objections as to the specific powers on regulation of elected members and the Senates power to set as a court for impeachments, as well as the number of Senate members were to be a fixed number of state Representatives while the house of representatives would be augmented as the progress of population to certain states grew.

 

Federalist papers 67-77 are in regard to the executive branch, covering the President and the Vice-President, their character and demeanor along with power that will be given to them and the abuses that have to be safeguarded against.  There was even an argument as to if a previous executive could be re-eligible to become president.  Essay 68 argues the election process of the president and the mode of electing the president.

Excerpt from Federalist 68 – Alexander Hamilton:

“Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one quarter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention. They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office. No senator, representative, or other person holding a place of trust or profit under the United States, can be of the numbers of the electors. Thus without corrupting the body of the people, the immediate agents in the election will at least enter upon the task free from any sinister bias.”

Federalist papers 78-83 are about the judiciary and practices that the Supreme Court will carry out.  In this set of essays the writers a very cautious about the judicial branch and their power to rewrite law from the bench.  In essay 78 Hamilton points out the delegation of the Judiciary Department.

Hamilton writes. “It is not otherwise to be supposed, that the Constitution could intend to enable the representatives of the people to substitute their ‘will’ to that of their constituents.  It is far more rational to suppose, that the courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature

In this essay not only do you find out what the exact representation of the courts is, but who the courts are to protect.  The Supreme courts’ only job is to protect the constitution of the United States, which in turn is to protect the citizens of the United States.

Federalist papers 84 and 85 are general objections and conclusions to the task at hand, a new country and the rules that it will abide by.

“…It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.”

James Madison from Federalist No. 51

  

James Madison wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson who was in Paris throughout the Convention and critical phase of the ratification process.  This one seldom read letter might be the single most important letter in James Madison’s career and perhaps one of the most important in the history of the United States.  With the Constitutional Convention ending on the 17^th of September 1787, James Madison was at liberty to interpret the document to his close friend.

James Madison’s explanations are of interest for several reasons.  First, unlike the Federalist Papers, where the arguments are in a large number of separate documents all of the discussion is in one document.  Second, Madison feels free writing to his friend Jefferson to criticize one aspect of the Constitution: Congress was not given a negative (veto) over state laws.  The Federalist Papers presented arguments in favor of the Constitution, and no faults were admitted.  Third, Madison again presents his arguments concerning the dangers of factions and the advantages of a large republic in curbing faction.  This argument is to gain lasting and deserved fame with the publication of the Federalist Papers specifically number 10.

Finally, this letter may be thought of James Madison’s first and perhaps critical effort to secure ratification of the Constitution.  Jefferson’s support could not be assumed.  Jefferson, unlike Madison, was not upset by Shay’s rebellion, and he strongly objected to the lack of a Bill of Rights.  Yet his support, or at least an absence of opposition, was essential for the ratification.  If Jefferson was opposed to the ratification or supported the call for another convention, Madison would have had to overcome the opposition of Jefferson, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and James Monroe to secure Virginia’s ratification.  It is difficult to imagine that Madison could have succeeded.  Madison also knew that two states hung in the balance, Virginia and New York.  New York’s ratification weighed heavily on Virginia, If Virginia had not ratified, then, and the new Union was sure to have failed.

Thank Me:)