James Madison begins his famous federalist paper by explaining that the purpose of this essay is to help the readers understand how the structure of the proposed government makes liberty possible. Each branch should be, for the most part, in Madison's opinion, independent. To assure such independence, no one branch should have too much power in selecting members of the other two branches. If this principle were strictly followed, it would mean that the citizens should select the president, the legislators, and the judges. But, the framers recognized certain practical difficulties in making every office elective.
In this case, should government be able to use its authority in any way it pleases as Hobbes argues or should there be a limit placed on governmental power as argued by Locke and Mill? I believe that a powerful government can exist and provide its citizens with the necessary security while being limited. There is no need for government to be large in order to achieve this. Although both Locke and Mill have a just understanding of what the limits of government should be, I find Locke’s understanding more persuasive. Locke writes that while government should restrict our freedom in order for us to avoid returning to the state of nature , the amount of restriction should be limited.
If the party is not majority than it can be controlled by majority vote. Madison believed that in the government established by the Constitution, political parties were to be tolerated and checked by the government, however the parties were never to control the government. Madison was absolutely convinced that parties were unhealthy to the government, but his basic point was to control parties as to prevent them from being dangerous. Schattschneider's view was different from that of Madison's in that he did not believe that political parties were completely destructive to government and that their effectiveness should be almost completely abolished. He did, however, agree with Madison in the idea that the Constitution tolerated parties but then created a system to absolutely limit their powers.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau disagreed with Hobbes completely in this regard. He felt that a sovereign should not have all the power, the people should. To him, though uneducated, the citizens living in a society had more jurisdiction to govern themselves because they would always do what was best for the general will, or the common good. "All political power, according to Rousseau, must reside with the people, exercising their general will"(Costly 2004). He may have felt this way because to him, the state of nature was not a battlefield, but a state of relative social isolation in which we were truly free.
The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr... ... middle of paper ... ... for example, people who have radical beliefs, will be denied these beliefs and forced to supportthe viewpoint of the general will. Locke believed established, settled and known law should determine right and wrong which in and of itself should constrain people, and naturally result in obedience to the law . "The power of punishing he wholly gives up" (Locke 17) which means that the State now has ultimate control over the individual rights of everyone in society. Another limitation on the people is that for Locke (?? )the only people that actually counted were land owning men, and not woman or landless peasants, so this would leave a significant portion of the populace without a say in the government.
Locke stated that society could overthrow the government without returning to the state of nature because the social contract would still be in effect. All that was needed would be for the society to elect another government, by majority rule, to replace the old one. This introduces the idea that government should be accountable to the people. Locke was in favor of a limited government. The importance and autonomy of the individual in society was of very importance to Locke.
Based on their experience, the framers didn’t want to give any branch of government too much power because they always take advantage of it. Keeping the powers separated provides a system of shared power known as checks and balances. They also came up with a system called the separation of powers which give the legislative, executive and judicial branches their own powers so they don’t use it to their advantage and abuse it. The legislative branch has the power of being responsible and enacting the laws of the state and appropriating the money necessary to operate the government. The executive branch is responsible for implementing and administering the public policy enacted and funded by the legislative branch and finally, the judicial branch is responsible for interpreting the constitution and laws and applying their interpretations to controversies brought before it.
“You took by force what you wanted, you are only as safe as your own intellect and physical strength.” So, Hobbes believed that the government should provide protection, well-being, and any other need a citizen might have. If there was no government, there was fear. Locke on the other hand believed that rulers and citizens’ rights should all be restricted by the laws of nature (right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property). He believed that a person should not be under political power without agreeing to the power itself. He said that the people should agree to be under political power, and should agree to government.
Areas such as war, negotiation, and foreign commerce were some of the only circumstances in which the national government had absolute power. By limiting the national governments power in this way, the writers felt that they had ensured the sovereignty of the individual states. Also, people have a tendency to feel more connected to their state government than they would a national government. Therefore, by giving the states more power, people are more likely to be happy with their government. Federalist papers 45 and 46 are both arguments by James Madison as to why the people should not be afraid of the proposed Constitution and the powers it entailed regarding the national government.
In contrast, Locke is much more in favor of giving the government only some power over its people. Locke also goes into great detail on how this can and should be accomplished, a contrast from Hobbes. Thomas Hobbes and John Locke both argue for two very different types of government — Hobbes an absolute sovereignty, and Locke a much more limited government, outlined with checks and balances. Both men referred to a social contract between that of the sovereign and the people, in which the people agree amongst themselves to relinquish some of their freedoms for the security and safety of having a government. The key differences in the