James Madison wrote The Federalist 51 in order to state how the future government would make liberty possible in society. Madison believed that each branch should be, for the most part, independent. Montesquieu previously thought of this idea of separation of power. He then goes on to explain that to ensure that each branch is independent, it would mean that the citizens would select the president, legislators, and the judges. However, framers found great difficulty in making the correct decision when it came to an election.
1. What is essential to the “preservation of liberty?” How should this “be so constituted?” The powers of government must be separated in order to preserve liberty To do this, the members of one branch should have little to no power over the selection of members of another branch
It was seen as unconstitutional and dictatorial. Since then each party had different views on how the government should be run in regards to interpreting the Constitution. The Jeffersonian Republicans believed in powerful state governments, to establish an agrarian, and decentralized federal government. In a letter to Gideon Granger, a fellow republican and a future cabinet member, he described his belief of a strict analysis or the "preservation of" the federal Constitution for a strong state government. He stated that one government cannot direct all the affairs within the country, but a state government can conduct its affairs more efficiently and productively.
“If this system was so framed as to command that respect from the people, which every good free government will obtain, this provision was unnecessary” (Brutus 4). •People will not support laws that the magistrates carry out by themselves and shouldn’t be expected to, since it is a free government. •The right of election is given by the people, but the Congress has the power to change the time, regulations, and place of the elections. •If the federal government moves the elections to the capital, only the high-ranked people from the society would be able to attend and they would choose people from the same class.
The papers that they would write detailed how the Constitution would provide “a remedy for the diseases most incident to Republican Government” and to “secure the public good and private rights” (Fed #10) arguing over concepts that they felt were key to providing this security. One of their main objections against the Articles of Confederation was that the “Separation of Powers” maintained in the Articles was not an effective way to protect the public against potential abuses. The Federalist argues that each department should have a will of its own and have as little as possible to do with the appointment of members of the other branches; that each department should have enough power to carry out its mission an them limit its power so that it cannot become to tyrannical. The Federalist, argues that payments attached to the offices of each branch should be as independent as possible and that a system of checks and balances were necessary to thwart encroachments by other
As citizens, the only thing that we can do to help fight against gerrymandering would be to use our legislative powers and fight for more transparent and public system within their states to hold elected officials accountable. Even if we were able to fix gerrymandering, it still would not be enough to fix gridlock. If we were able to fix gridlock, it still would not solve close to any of the problems rooted in Washington. It seems as though we are waiting for the problems to fix themselves, but we need to realize it isn't a problem that can fix itself. Each state needs to work within itself every ten
They add that its thoughts of loyalty and propriety are believed to make it impossible for people to express their views in the process of policymaking and justify their government policy. There is also no mechanism for government to strike the balance between two parties, leading to biased decisions and unfair policies which could undermine social harmony and stability. In fact, democracy includes decisions made by majority which is also compatible with the Doctrine of Mean in Confucianism (Xu, 2006). By general consent, a consensus can be reached and a relatively acceptable decision can be made after a series of discussion. The decision made through a democratic process by majority is often regarded as an eclectic decision which aims at making compromise between two extreme political parties.
Washington would see that individual communities and movements have created change for themselves, while working against others. It’s amazing what could be done if we stopped working against each other. While political parties aren’t going away, which would be to Washington’s dismay, he would suggest that the next president figure out a way to stop the two main parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party, from being convinced their beliefs are the “correct” beliefs. If we cannot get rid of political parties, the best we can do is unite them. The only way to change our country is by working with each other, not against each other.
First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
This act is preventing us from living to our full potential. Those Brits have the willingness to come to us, the American Colonists and say that we have to pay extra taxes for something that they do as well, this act is just hypocritical. Everyone deserves the same rights and it’s not fair to discriminate by who you are. The Proclamation of 1763 shows us that we don’t have equal rights as of now considering that American settlers cannot expand west of the Appalachian Mountains. Do you want a government that forces you to do stuff without getting to have a say, or a government that will listen to you and you will get a voice in it.
The Anti Federalists didn’t want what we have now,they didn’t want the federal government to have and influence over citizens’ lives, they didn’t want the govt to in any way resemble a monarchy because they had just escaped from the corrupt monarchy. They believed that if the power in the country occupied in the people of the various states, then their vision would have a chance of success. Likewise, the Anti Federalist thought there was no bill of rights, so they disliked the constitution. Every constitution should have one for the people, and the government shouldn’t refuse to give on, as shown on Document E. The Letter to James Madison, Objections to the Constitution was written by Thomas Jefferson to explain what he disliked about the constitution to one of the writings, after the constitution was drafted and were awaiting ratification. Thomas Jefferson also asserts that he doesn’t like the fact that there is no rules and regulations in regard to office terms, and how the officers could get re-elected and serve for like, thus, will result with corruption
Members of the other branches shouldn’t be dependent on what the other two branches should get paid. The best way to protect the concentration of power in any branch
George Clinton, Samuel Adams, Luther Martin, Richard Henry Lee, and Patrick Henry who were a part of the American Revolution, rejected the Convention in Philadelphia because they did not agree with its objectives. They were convinced that it threatened the “core principles” of the revolutionary heritage. The government regulated by the new Constitution and its democracy were less likely to thrive in small towns because people would not vote directly for their senators or their president, and radical egalitarianism did not have the opportunity to develop under the enhanced central state. Anti-Federalists actually exposed a wide range of ideas and theories; some aimed at reducing federal power, while others asked for the restrictions of that
To add, he explains that enabling the minority freedom upon the constitution may overrule the majority and will undermine the power of the judiciary. I do not agree with Bork’s statement since it only concerns the power structure in the political sphere. The foundation of law should not be interpreted based on power but, solely on the Constitution and how it is translated through fair and fundamental values that should most importantly reflect an individual’s right and
2- By removing its causes and controlling its effects are the two main ways, they could also by destroying the liberty and by giving every citizen the same opinion passions and interests. Obviously the last two would not work because liberty is essential to have in a government. Also all people do not have the same opinions and passions and interests, in a free nation we are entitled to have our own ideas and passions and such. The only effective way would be to control effects and to try and remove the causes.