Editors Note: The major purpose of American Free News Network, is education; education on American Civics and how our government is supposed to work. John Parillo has put forth a stellar effort to explain not only what the Framers did when they wrote our Constitution, but why.
Ed
On the Importance of Process and the Republican Nature of the New Government
In Federalist 38 Madison discusses the process by which the new proposed constitution was written and how that process was superior to anything that had been attempted before in history. If you recall, Plato believed that an enlightened philosopher king should rule, and that only this kind of man would be capable of creating, and leading, the city state. His reasoning was that man was too fraught with faults to avoid pursuing his own self-interest.
Madison lists the examples of Minos in Crete, Zaleucus of the Locrians, Theseus in Athens, Lycurgus of Spart, Romulus of Rome, and others to illustrate how these city states all were established, and their laws created, by a single person even as they went on to have legislative bodies. And all these states went through periods where single emperors ruled regardless of the original intent of their founding. Even democracy loving Athenians, “a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, …should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens”.[1]
Up until this point, this is how governments were formed. “(T)hese lessons teach us, … to admire the improvement made by America on the ancient mode of preparing and establishing regular plans of government”. The process by which the new constitution was written matters greatly. The representative way in which all states, and through their delegates the citizens thein, are represented is absolutely novel. It has never happened in the course of history to that time. This process alone helps ensure the liberty of the citizens of the new country.
Madison asks of those who object to the constitution, what they would propose as an alternative? He lists some of the issues that have been raised, and then points out that, even in their specific objections, opponents are on both sides of the issue. They want a bill of rights but then want it reserved to the states, there are objections from large states as to the make-up of the senate and smaller states regarding the make-up of the house of representatives, and many others. His point is that this is the best compromise that could be achieved, and that no better alternative exists.
In a phrase that reminds us of Aristotle, Madison compares the process of selecting the ideal constitution to the treatment of a sick patient. He says that it is not enough to disagree with the doctor’s proposed course of action, there needs to be an alternative. As an example, he points out to those who would prefer keeping with the existing Articles of Confederation, that they allow, “A GREAT and INDEPENDENT fund of revenue is passing into the hands of a SINGLE BODY of men, who can RAISE TROOPS to an INDEFINITE NUMBER, and appropriate money to their support for an INDEFINITE PERIOD OF TIME.” (Emphasis in the original). The new proposed constitution would separate those powers and make it more difficult for the new country to abuse both taxation, and the raising of troops.
In Federalist 39 Madison seeks to answer whether the new constitution creates a truly republican form of government and whether that government is federal or national in construction.
On the first question, Madison starts by declaring that only a representative republic, “would be reconcilable with the genius of the people of America; with the fundamental principles of the Revolution”. He points out that no such thing exists anywhere else in the world, and lists the various places that claim the title incorrectly. “It is ESSENTIAL to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion, or a favored class of it”. There is no nobility in the new country, in fact the constitution includes an, “absolute prohibition of titles of nobility”.
In each of the states’ constitutions, legislatures are chosen by the people for, “a definite period, and in many instances, both within the legislative and executive departments, to a period of years.” Here again we see the criticality of turnover within these branches of government for ensuring liberty.
The judicial branch is different in that, “the members of the judiciary department are to retain their offices by the firm tenure of good behavior.” These characteristics are carried forward into the new United States Constitution. “The House of Representatives is periodically elective, as in all the States; and for the period of two years, as in the State of South Carolina. The Senate is elective, for the period of six years; which is but one year more than the period of the Senate of Maryland, and but two more than that of the Senates of New York and Virginia. The President is to continue in office for the period of four years”. If the states use these republican systems, Madison believes it should be acceptable for the federal government to do so as well.
The ratification process itself is republican in nature. The citizens, through their delegates, can choose to ratify or kill the new constitution. Because the constitution would be binding on the states, it is a federal act. Because it requires unanimity of the states to approve the constitution and not a majority of the people, this also is a federal act. The House of Representatives would be chosen directly by the people, and thus be a national body.
The Senate, chosen by the state representatives, and coequal in power regardless of the population of the state, is more of a federal body. The president, indirectly chosen by the states and the people, is a combination of both federal and national characteristics. It is this “mixed character” of government that Madison felt was the best way of insuring both individual liberties, and providing the authority necessary to perform the acts needed in a federal government.
But to those who worry about too much power being in the hands of the federal government, Madison reiterates the point that Hamilton made earlier that, “the proposed government cannot be deemed a NATIONAL one; since its jurisdiction extends to certain enumerated objects only, and leaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty over all other objects.”
To read all of John Parillo’s work on the Federalist Papers, check here.
If you enjoyed this article, then please REPOST or SHARE with others; encourage them to follow AFNN. If you’d like to become a citizen contributor for AFNN, contact us at managingeditor@afnn.us Help keep us ad-free by donating here.
Substack: American Free News Network Substack
Truth Social: @AFNN_USA
Facebook: https://m.facebook.com/afnnusa
Telegram: https://t.me/joinchat/2_-GAzcXmIRjODNh
Twitter: https://twitter.com/AfnnUsa
GETTR: https://gettr.com/user/AFNN_USA
CloutHub: @AFNN_USA