During the construction of the new Constitution, many of the most prominent and experienced political members of America’s society provided a framework on the future of the new country; they had in mind, because of the failures of the Articles of Confederation, a new kind of government where the national or Federal government would be the sovereign power, not the states. Because of the increased power of the national government over the individual states, many Americans feared it would hinder their ability to exercise their individual freedoms. Assuring the people, both Alexander Hamilton and James Madison insisted the new government under the constitution was “an expression of freedom, not its enemy,” declaring “the Constitution made political tyranny almost impossible.” (Foner, pg. 227) The checks and balances introduced under the new and more powerful national government would not allow the tyranny caused by a king under the Parliament system in Britain. They insisted that in order achieve a greater amount of freedom, a national government was needed to avoid the civil unrest during the system under the Articles of Confederation. Claiming that the new national government would be a “perfect balance between liberty and power,” it would avoid the disruption that liberty [civil unrest] and power [king’s abuse of power in England] caused. The “lackluster leadership” of the critics of the new constitution claimed that a large land area such as America could not work for such a diverse nation.
Throughout Federalist 10, James Madison argues that we must allow people to separate into groups according to their needs and beliefs regarding the political system of our country. These factions will protect interests and create an elevated government comprised of the most knowledgeable and educated men to protect the citizenry. His arguments reflect his status as a wealthy and educated landowner that must protect himself in the face of the common people. I will argue that Madison’s argument is flawed, which he alludes to in his writing, because he neglects to acknowledge that people are self-interested and therefore, morally corrupt. This self-interest will be the downfall of Madison’s government as private interests take root and the will of the people is ignored in all places but elections.
If a separation of powers was ever needed in our country, it was at a time when the peoples’ greatest fear was another all-powerful Parliament or tyrannical king. The Separation of Powers were needed most when the country was new and the Articles of Confederation were failing. Just after the Revolutionary War, but before Madison had taken presidency, the people feared another monarchy. To them, it was highly possible that if Washington — their very first president, and the commander who had lead them through their rebellion — was so inclined, it would not be so far-fetched that he would be able abuse his power and keep a tight hold on the country. The citizens feared an almighty Congress, and wondered how fair trials could really be under Madison’s
The United States of America is one of the most powerful nation-states in the world today. The framers of the American Constitution spent a great deal of time and effort into making sure this power wasn’t too centralized in one aspect of the government. They created three branches of government to help maintain a checks and balance system. In this paper I will discuss these three branches, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial, for both the state and federal level.
There are many examples, both historical and contemporary, where any branch of the government can be soundly criticized for having failed to live up to that standard, or for having exceeded its proper mandate and authority. For purposes of this essay, we need only note the reality of such circumstances, without enumerating particular instances. Though I am often cynical with respect to the actual operation of the various branches of government, I am in general agreement with Dr. Patterson’s assessment that American government is the most successful in the modern world, what Ronald Reagan once referred to us as “the last best hope of man on
In 1789, the Confederation of the United States, faced with the very real threat of dissolution, found a renewed future with the ratification of the Constitution of the United States. This document created a structure upon which the citizens could build a future free of the unwanted pitfalls and hazards of tyrannies, dictatorship, or monarchies, while securing the best possible prospects for a good life. However, before the establishment of the new United States government, there was a period of dissent over the need for a strong centralized government. Furthermore, there was some belief that the new constitution failed to provide adequate protection for small businessmen and farmers and even less clear protection for fundamental human rights.
James Madison explains that the way to “exercise” the proposed government is to have independency for each branch without the members having too much power and having equal authority. If that happened, “all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies” would have to be elected by the citizens. However, that would cause conflict because there are certain duties that regular people cannot qualify for. Madison states that "if men were angels, no government would be necessary” and each member must have the right ambition and won’t abuse the power that they have. The government should have power and self-control while controlling the citizens. It’s not possible for each department to be all equal. The “remedy”
Damaris Schwarz
Political Science
Buckley, Michael
9 March, 2014
Madison's Model
Power should always be distributed, because too much power isn't always a good thing. Too much power can result in domination of others, which is why organization and structure is the key to success, and that's where the Madisonian Model comes in. However, not all ideas intended to succeed do. Even though Madison's model was designed to prevent the imposition of tyranny, that didn't seem to work out too well.
Life is tumultuous and unpredictable, and consequently, so are politics. Which begs the question: how well do the varied natures of such things translate to our governing bodies and, more specifically, our own Constitution? An exploration of the origin, the path, and the future of the United States Constitution shows that it might not be as reflective of the wants and wishes of its citizens as it should be; in fact, it may be just the opposite.
This article discussed the author’s opinion on what he perceived as the holes and flaws in the American political regime, especially centering around President Donald Trump’s current leadership and behavior. He examines how there is now a “danger” of an autocracy forming in the United States because of Trump’s current actions in office and how he is handling our nation's problems as well as the growing concern of others who oppose him. The argument brought forth included how he perceives the original founding father’s warnings to avoid forming political parties as a way for them to contain “supremacy of [his] chosen political party”. (1) This, of course, is an opinion and should not be seen as the true reasoning behind the founding fathers