"What Americans would not do…for the vindication of a fundamental first principle: the right of the people to determine their own future," comments Albert R. Papa in his article "The Allure of Civics Book Democracy". While nearly all Americans recognize the benefits of a democratic nation, the Federalists maintain that often times, minority and ma... ... middle of paper ... ...stem is to prevent the concentration of power in the hands of a few, the presidential veto hardly accomplishes this goal. Although the president cannot create new law, his ability to prevent new law resembles the power held by a dictator. How democratic can one man's vote be? The Federalists believed in a form of government that is not consistent with the textbook definition of "majority rules".
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.
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.
Although the Democratic Republicans and the Federalists did support their own ideas and views, they also did many things that contradicted them. The Democratic Republicans started out by supporting their ideas fully and confidently. In Jefferson's letter to Gideon Granger (Document A), Jefferson displays his ideas on how the Constitution should be interpreted and how they oppose the ideas of the Federalists. Jefferson also tells Granger that he disagrees with the Federalists' ideas and that it would "sink the states' governments, consolidate them into one, and to monarchies that." He also believes in a weak central government, an idea of a Democratic-Republican, having the states be control of everything internal and only having the central government in charge of foreign affairs.
Montesquieu’s emphasis on the separation of government into three divisions is an idea that Madison adapted in the Constitution. In the “republican” government, checks and balances are necessary to keep the government working for the people instead of the reverse. The wisest of men are to represent the people’s interests and understand these interests to be those of the community as a whole. Madison may have adopted the separation of powers idea from philosophers such as Montesquieu and Locke, but there are several more prerequisites required to compose a truly republican government. While the Anti-Federalists were not classical republicans either, they did make some valid arguments as to why the beliefs of the Federalists were not consistently republican.
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.
Alexander Banks 5/16/14 Fahrenheit 451 In Federalist 10 James Madison argued that while factions are inevitable, they might have interests adverse to the rights of other citizens. Madison’s solution was the implementation of a Democratic form of government. He felt that majority rule would not eliminate factions, but it would not allow them to be as powerful as they were. With majority rule this would force all parties affiliate and all social classes from the rich white to the poor minorities to work together and for everyone’s opinion and views to be heard. The Republican form of government that was fashioned by the Constitution would allow these factions too remain on top and stay powerful.
Federal politicians use desultory commands as leverage to ensure that the states comply with their wishes. The federal government cannot tell the states what to do but such schemes are just unfair. An amendment abolishing federal mandates would create a stronger democracy by giving the state legislatures full control over the implementation of laws at the discretion of the voters thus placing power back in the heart of the US democracy, the people, where it belongs. Some may argue that adding an amendment eradicat... ... middle of paper ... ... foreign land but, it is that very government not letting them have a celebratory drink upon their return home. An amendment to the constitution eradicating federal mandates would make lead the country to be more democratic by once again placing the majority of the say in the hands of the people and therefore, with the state legislatures.
They were based on certain principles that would make each one run effectively. The criteria of size and population mattered just as importantly as anything else that has been discussed. He would probably think that the United States was not best ran in a democratic structure due to its size and the diversity of its population. The Republican Party, contrary to Rousseau's claim, believes that the form of government is not the problem, but how that government has been ran ineffectively. They continue by stating that their philosophy has been to let government, by which its people are free, run without intervention of it's representatives.
The each had opposing views and ideas for the new country of the United States. In the aspect of government, the federalists believed we should have a strong federal government with weak power of the states. The Republicans believed that the states should have individual power, and the government should be weak, just strong enough so that we could be on unified country. The Federalists viewed the constitution as a lenient document, which inferred powers not written specifically. The Republicans interpreted the constitution strictly, and if it didn't state the power directly, it was unconstitutional.