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.
Because the Judicial branch houses appointed justices and not elected justices, conflicts with democracy because it denies the people the right to vote for who they want to represent them, it gives an enormous amount of power and influence to a few people for too long, and it tolerates justices placing their own interests and tasks ahead of the people’s. The Judiciary is supposed to protect and interpret the constitution and federal laws, not to create new policy for everyone to follow; history has shown what it takes to overcome the inadequacy of unelected Supreme Court Justices. Works Cited Greene, Jamal. “Term Limits for Federal Judges.” New York Times. 8 July 2012.
However, the fact that he believes that in order for government to work it needs to be huge makes me think of a monarchy right away. I believe the people should have the right to speak up for what they believe in as well as have the right to go against government if and when they feel the laws being imposed by government are not moral. However, if we were to subdue to Hobbes form of government we give up any right whatsoever to disagree with the sovereign. Therefore, Locke’s governmental proposal is a balance between that of Hobbes’s and Mill’s. After all, when a man steps out of the State of Nature it is not to create absolute monarchy, as Hobbes believe but to create o form of civil government.
He saw factions as protection against tyranny and encouraged a form of government that would encourage and bolster factions. If majority always takes over and minorities do not have a say, things like slavery will never be abolished. Numerous factions would also mean that no one group would be able to take complete control of the government and this would give rise to what Madison called “politics,” namely, the art of governing. Madison says each branch should be independent and no one branch should have too much power in selecting members of the other two branches. If one had accumulated all political power, nothing could stop it from acting tyrannically.
Key, Jr., were not arguing that a unified government always creates a lot of notable laws, but they are more likely to produce notable legislation compared to divided control. Mayhew also considers the argument that Congress of the opposite party to the president will often scrutinize the president's performance, but argues that it also adds a "check" to keep the president and bureaucrats in line. He also notes that Woodrow Wilson would call it an antagon... ... middle of paper ... ... that if everyone had the same facts about a specific situation that they would all want the same thing. However, Truman states that the differing experiences we all have encourage individuality and also result in differing attitudes to certain subject matters. Truman backs his statement by claiming that even during wartime, when we should be united in our goals, we "... always find pacifists, conscientious objectors, spies, and subversives, who reflect interests opposed of those of 'the nation as a whole.'
In an absolute government, the people are not in a position to question the government on their decisions. Moreover the corruption in those governments can run a muck if not checked. In order to circumvent this Locke suggests creating separate powers to both pass and enforce the law. Locke was one of the first political philosophers to separate powers of the government, which was in direct difference from the absolute monarchies he was living under. According to John Locke the government should consist of a legislative branch and an executive branch (Locke 1681, 335-37).
Finally, the recent course of federalism has been to give powers back to the states. Federalism was needed in the Constitution to make sure that the national government did not gain too much power. After the revolution, many people feared a monarchy or any form of government in which the central ruling body had too much power. The framers wanted the states to have much more power than the national government, and allowed the national government power only in areas that concerned the nation as a whole. Areas such as war, negotiation, and foreign commerce were some of the only circumstances in which the national government had absolute power.
If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary” (Federalist 51). Publius says this in order to make the analogy that we are no angels, therefore we cannot govern ourselves. This is a good example in showing that human nature and human beings have flaws, so something will more than likely go wrong no matter the circumstances. Publius talks about in Federalist 51 that since men are not angels we live in a society where men govern men and when doing that we have to control their power, as to what they can and cannot decide on such as making laws, distributing laws, and deciding who and how said laws are being forced upon. If you do not control the power of the government they will eventually combine all their powers to form a tyranny.
Each branch would be independent and have equal power. Madison also notes that people are fundamentally flawed, so government needs to be able to control their passions. Madison states, “If men were angels, no government would b... ... middle of paper ... ...diverse republic, where it would be difficult for factions to gain majority power. However, Madison knew that to large of a republic would lead to a country with no cohesion among its states. Madison notes that if the republic would get too large, their representatives would take little notice of local issues.
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.