On the other hand, though John Locke held a strong influence in the construction of the Constitution, one cannot eschew Thomas Hobbes’ effect on the both of them. Hobbes also purported a State of Nature for Man, although his was one of great hardship, war, and suffering; “where every man [was] Enemy to every man” (Hobbes, pg. 89). Like Locke, his too was a state of perfect equality, not because everyone had equal right to the fruits of the earth, but because they were all equally able to be killed (Hobbes, pg. 87). The life of man without the protection of a civil authority was, according to Leviathan, “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short” (89). In order to better protect themselves the people, out of fear, submit to an all-powerful authority, …show more content…
As Hobbes asserted, the Leviathan could do anything they felt necessary to uphold their understanding of the common good. Inklings of this premise then found its way to the Constitution. For the take care clause the President was tasked with the duty that “the laws be faithfully executed” (Article II, Section 3). With no other caveat, one could argue that this clause gave the executive a large berth of authority when it came to executing the laws. It could be used to justify nearly any act not accounted for in the Constitution, like executive orders or an exercise of prerogative power. As long as the case could be made that the President was upholding his solemn duty to faithfully carry out legislative orders, he could back up his decisions and …show more content…
He did not receive Congressional approval for the transaction, but felt that he had to act quickly before the French rescinded their offer. Jefferson also wholeheartedly believed that the Congress would back his decision to buy the land He stated in his letter to John C. Breckinridge that they “[would] see their duty to their country in ratifying & paying for it, so as to secure a good which would otherwise probably be never again in their power” (On the Louisiana Purchase). He went on to say that the real judge of the legality of his decision was the people. While he regretted technically going against the letter of the Constitution because it had no specific provisions for the acquisition of foreign territory, the citizens were ultimately the most important factor in whether or not his decision was sound (On the Louisiana Purchase). Jefferson would throw himself on their mercy, and then let the will of the people speak at the next election. This power would be exercised later by various executives throughout the history of the
Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have authored two works that have had a significant impact on political philosophy. In the “Leviathan” by Hobbes and “Two Treatises of Government” by Locke, the primary focus was to analyze human nature to determine the most suitable type of government for humankind. They will have confounding results. Hobbes concluded that an unlimited sovereign is the only option, and would offer the most for the people, while for Locke such an idea was without merit. He believed that the government should be limited, ruling under the law, with divided powers, and with continued support from its citizens. With this paper I will argue that Locke had a more realistic approach to identifying the human characteristics that organize people into societies, and is effective in persuading us that a limited government is the best government.
The reasoning behind the Constitution of the United States is presented as 'based upon the philosophy of Hobbes and the religion of Calvin. It assumes the natural state of mankind in a state of war, and that the carnal mind is at enmity with God.' Throughout, the struggle between democracy and tyranny is discussed as the Founding Fathers who envisioned the Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 believed not in total democracy, but instead saw common man as selfish and contemptuous, and therefore in need of a 'a good political constitution to control him.' Being a largely propertied body, with the exception of William Few, who was the only one who could honestly be said to represent the majority yeoman farmer class, the highly privileged classes were fearful of granting man his due rights, as the belief that 'man was an unregenerate rebel who has to be controlled' reverberated.
Jefferson believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. In “Opinion on the Constitutionality of a National Bank” Jefferson says, “all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states or to the people.” This means that if the federal government wants to do something, and it is not mentioned in the Constitution, the federal government does not have the power to do whatever they wanted to do. Jefferson clearly does not follow this during the Louisiana Purchase. There is no clause in the Constitution that justifies the purchase of new land to the United States. So to justify the purchase, Jefferson, in a letter to John C. Breckinridge Monticello, wrote, “I did this for your good; I pretend to no right to bind you: you may disavow me, and I must get out of the scrape as I can: I thought it my duty to risk myself for you.” Here Jefferson says that he used his implied Constitutional powers to purchase Louisiana because he felt it was for the good of the people. This is totally against his Constitution principles because looking back at the first document he is totally against implied powers, but that is what he uses to justify the purchase.
John Locke is considered one of the best political minds of his time. The modern conception of western democracy and government can be attributed to his writing the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke championed many political notions that both liberals and conservatives hold close to their ideologies. He argues that political power should not be concentrated to one specific branch, and that there should be multiple branches in government. In addition to, the need for the government to run by the majority of the population through choosing leaders, at a time where the popular thing was to be under the rule of a monarch. But despite all of his political idea, one thing was extremely evident in his writing. This was that he preferred limited
Did Thomas Jefferson make the right deal on purchasing the Louisiana Territory in 1803? I believe Thomas Jefferson made the right choice of accepting the deal Napoleon Bonaparte offered. The Louisiana Purchase was one of the biggest and cheapest land deals in United States history. The Louisiana Purchase involved two countries, the United States and France, and a big bill for the newly formed United States. Thomas Jefferson doing his best to follow the constitution would soon find it difficult to do so. When Spain gave the Louisiana territory back to France, Jefferson was hit with a dilemma. Thomas Jefferson was caught between his ideas and reality, and with the Pinckney Treaty now void, Jefferson had to find a way to get access to the Mississippi
...strict interpretation of the constitution. Jefferson was a strong advocate for a strict construction of the constitution, and believed that if the constitution did not mention anything about the change, the government had no right to create it. During the 1790’s, Jefferson was a huge advocate against Hamilton’s idea of creating a national bank. Jefferson explained the “necessary and proper” clause as only allowing congress to take actions that were necessary. Jefferson did hate the idea, but article IV of the constitution says that new states may be added. Jefferson did attempt to draft an amendment that would authorize the purchase of Louisiana, but congress disregarded it. His principles about completing actions that were not mentioned in the constitution were put aside, and he purchased the land. Later, Jefferson described the purchase as a “great achievement.”
The Constitution did not authorize the acquisition of land, but it did provide for the making of treaties, so that Jefferson felt the acquisition of new territory was constitutional, with an amendment. He had mixed feelings about this issue and warned that American liberty would be threatened if the Constitution was distorted (LeFeber 181). He was not willing to loose the opportunity to expand the United States. The purchase of Louisiana from France had long been a favorite project with Mr. Jefferson. He viewed it as essential to removing from the United States a source of continual conflicts with the European possessors of ...
Hobbes and Locke both picture a different scene when they express human nature. Even though they both believed that men naturally have to some extent equality and freedom, what makes their concepts different is the presence or absence of the natural law. In Hobbes' theory, men in their natural state are at constant war, the war of all against all. Another Hobbes belief is that most people are selfish and tend to do everything for their own reason. To Hobbes humans are driven to maximize personal gains so in a world where there are no rules humans are in constant fear of each other as they each try to get as much as they can, enough is never enough.
Jefferson was the founder of the Democratic-Republic Party and believed in an agrarian society with strong local governments (i.e. a weak central government). He thought that the states should yield most of the power so that the citizens could control what happens to them (i.e. citizens wouldn’t have to follow the potential dictatorship of the central government). Soon enough, Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican policies clashed with the Federalist policies of Alexander Hamilton, who believed in an urban-based society and a strong central government. In addition, Jefferson was a believer in a strict interpretation of the Constitution. When he decided to buy the Louisiana Territory from France, however, he had to compromise his beliefs—the Constitution didn’t have a provision for the purchase of land. Therefore, the first major question that arouse from the purchase of the Louisiana Territory was whether or not the purchase was constitutional.
In The Leviathan Thomas Hobbes argues for the establishment of a society that does not contain the elements of its own demise. Hobbes views civil war as a society’s ultimate demise, and the only way to avoid it is for the citizens initially to submit to an absolute political authority. For Hobbes, civil war is inevitable in every type of government except an absolute government. In order to sustain this absolute government, the citizens not only must submit to the absolute political authority, but they must also not partake in activities that actively undermine the absolute political authority’s power. For these reasons, it is clear that Hobbes believes in political obedience and its ability to influence the peace of a society. Furthermore,
Self-preservation is an important factor in shaping the ideologies of Hobbes and Locke as it ties in to scarcity of resources and how each of them view man’s sate of nature. Hobbes and Locke both believe in self-preservation but how each of them get there is very different. Hobbes believes that man’s state of nature is a constant state of war because of his need to self-preserve. He believes that because of scarcity of goods, man will be forced into competition, and eventually will take what is others because of competition, greed, and his belief of scarce goods. Hobbes also states that glory attributes to man’s state of nature being a constant state of war because that drives man to go after another human or his property, on the one reason of obtaining glory even if they have enough to self preserve. Equality ties in with Hobbes view of man being driven by competition and glory because he believes that because man is equal in terms of physical and mental strength, this give them an equal cha...
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract. The intention of Leviathan is to create this perfect government, which people eagerly aspires to become apart of, at the behest of individual relinquishing their born rights. This commonwealth, the aggregation of people for the purposes of preventing unrest and war, is predicated upon laws that prohibit injustice through the implementation of punishment. Essentially in the mind of both Rousseau and Hobbes, constraints are necessary for human beings to be truly free under the covenants and contracts applied to the civil state at which mankind interface through.
In sophisticated prose, Hobbes manages to conclude that human beings are all equal in their ability to harm each other, and furthermore that they are all capable of rendering void at will the covenants they had previously made with other human beings. An absolutist government, according to Hobbes, would result in a in a society that is not entirely focused on self-preservation, but rather a society that flourishes under the auspices of peace, unity, and security. Of all the arguably great philosophical discourses, Hobbes in particular provides one of the surest and most secure ways to live under a sovereign that protects the natural liberties of man. The sovereign government is built upon the idea of stability and security, which makes it a very intriguing and unique government indeed. The aforementioned laudation of Hobbes and his assertions only helps to cement his political theories at the forefront of the modern
����������� Thomas Hobbes is an important political and social philosopher. He shares his political philosophy in his work Leviathan. Hobbes begins by describing the state of nature, which is how humans coped with one another prior to the existence of government. He explains that without government, �the weakest has the strength to kill the strongest� (Hobbes 507). People will do whatever it takes to further their own interests and protect their selves; thus, creating a constant war of �every man against every man� (Hobbes 508). His three reasons for people fighting amongst each other prior to government include �competition,� �diffidence,� and �glory� (Hobbes 508). He explains how men fight to take power over other people�s property, to protect them selves, and to achieve fame. He describes life in the state of nature as being �solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short� (Hobbes 508). Hobbes goes on to say that if men can go on to do as they please, there will always be war. To get out of this state of nature, individuals created contracts with each other and began to form a government.
Hobbes’ Leviathan and Locke’s Second Treatise of Government comprise critical works in the lexicon of political science theory. Both works expound on the origins and purpose of civil society and government. Hobbes’ and Locke’s writings center on the definition of the “state of nature” and the best means by which a society develops a systemic format from this beginning. The authors hold opposing views as to how man fits into the state of nature and the means by which a government should be formed and what type of government constitutes the best. This difference arises from different conceptions about human nature and “the state of nature”, a condition in which the human race finds itself prior to uniting into civil society. Hobbes’ Leviathan goes on to propose a system of power that rests with an absolute or omnipotent sovereign, while Locke, in his Treatise, provides for a government responsible to its citizenry with limitations on the ruler’s powers.