Evaluation of The Federalist Papers

1014 Words5 Pages
A new country, a government not properly established and so many ideas and model on how the government should look like whose idea is to be chosen. During the time that the federalist paper was written, there were many group out there not just the federalist but also the anti-federalist, the brutes and the centennial. Everyone having their own ideas and counters for each other’s argument. The federalist paper was somewhat a model on hut that how to run the country and it talked about issues in chronological order but that being said, federalist 47-51 was all based on the government interactions in the name of checks and balance so I will be evaluating how they made the argument. The first argument in the paper federalist 47, Madison was writing the rebuttal the idea of total separation. Since we just came out of what we will call the tyranny, “people” were fighting so that we won’t end up in the same situation when just one person had all the power so the conventional way to go was to totally separate branches, leaders etc. and this model was gotten out of a critics of the proposed Constitution by Montesquieu, a celebrated political critic who stated, when speaking of the British constitution, “there can be no liberty where the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or body of magistrates” or “if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers” In this sense, Madison idea was that yes that the branches would be separate but still intertwined with each other. He argued that divided we fall and that if the branches were divided then that’s giving so many power to a group with no way to control it and then the leader of that branches might as well be the king because... ... middle of paper ... ...ely nominal”. In conclusion federalist 47-51 all dealt with checks and balance. Check and balance not only with the government but with the society too. Madison used the previous experiences of the government of the British to model a government like that of the British but way better because every power, post etc. was accounted for so there won’t be the case of tyranny anymore. Yes there were counter argument most of all which was the fear that the government that the federalist were talking about won’t last due to the fears of wars, rebellion, conquering, equality and yes maybe another colonization but the way the federalist paper was written, it was written to build off of each other, the more argument that was presented by the brutes ,anti-federalist and even the centennial the more federalist paper the wrote to explain and disprove their opponents paper.
Open Document