“We the people”, as the founding fathers have expressed in the preamble of the US Constitution is the statement that is the cohesive glue that holds the foundation of the thought of American freedom and liberty across the political paradigm. It was then and it is still now what represents the American values across all nationalities. My thesis question is, did the founding fathers’ although misguided in their ideal model of the social contract. Did they at least have some understanding that with the growth of the population in America, would the governments of this time be able to represent the community as whole within the spheres of civil rights, political parties and civil liberties as intended in the preamble of the Constitution? If Men …show more content…
He knew that if people were left to their own devices to come up with legislation on how to rule the community as a whole then it would result in legislation that was self-interested and somehow promoted personal gains. It was in this form of thinking that in the Federalist Papers #51 Madison said that the checks and balances are needed in order to control the government from becoming despotic. Therefore, checks and balances were as such a direct reflection on human nature and our pursuit for the passions rather than reason or logic. (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1961, p. 318) It is here that Madison proposes his grand theory. “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.” (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1961, p. 319) In the preamble of the Constitution there is a direct mention to the altruistic model of trying to achieve domestic tranquility and trying to secure the blessings of liberty within the community. The assumption put forth by the Federalist paper #51 assumes that in a free government the safeguard for civil rights should be the same as the security for religious rights. (Hamilton, Madison, & Jay, 1961, p. 321) Madison understands that there is a correlation with the growth of the population and the personal interests of each of those groups. These multiplicities of …show more content…
Paul Ryan who was Romney’s choice of Representative in order to be his running mate showed that political parties are factions that are hidden within the US political system. Ryan had an elitist term that he used to describe the dichotomy of voters. He believed in “makers” and “takers” Where policy was created for budgets with tax cuts for the makers and sharp programs cuts for the so called takers. (Dionne Jr., 2016, p. 374) This model of thinking would later be disastrous to Romney on May 17th, 2012. When he expressed how he felt to a group of donors in Boca Rotan about how his faction views the general public. Romney said “that there is 47% of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.” (Dionne Jr., 2016, p. 375) He goes on to say how people are victims and that those people are also dependent on government. That they believe that the government has a duty to take care for them and are as such entitled to social benefits like health care, food, and housing. (Dionne Jr., 2016, p. 375) This contempt for the needy is what clearly shows that the framers in thinking that a social contract would work is not what they intended. All the framers were gullible, except for Madison who thought of the inclinations and the fallacies of human nature. The fact that the
James Madison’s Federalist 10 was written amid criticisms that a republican form of government had never been successful on a large scale. Madison’s argument was that a well-constructed union could control factions. He argued that in order to control factions from their causes, we would need to either give up liberty or free thought. Since we cannot infringe upon these two natural rights, we must move on to controlling the effects. A republic, Madison argues, would be able to do this because the people choose the representatives, and they choose representatives who they feel best represent their opinions.
The “Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments” was a pamphlet that was written by James Madison on June 20, 1785. After getting his heart broken due to a private affair that he had with a young woman and completing a meeting with Congress, James Madison left to go home to Virginia where he was elected into the Virginia House of Delegates. Before he decided to officially attend to his legal affairs, Madison took a tour alongside Marquis de Lafayette of the north side of the country. When Madison did finally return home to work, he found himself in a dispute with Patrick Henry, a governor in Virginia at the time. Governor Patrick Henry believed that taxes should be given to support those who took their time to teach the message
Religious Matters Of all arguments, conflicts, and conclusions that have been made towards the government, nothing has proved to be more argumentative than those disputes concerning religion. In the summer of 1785, James Madison wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments. In this document, Madison showed his answer to the proposed tax in Virginia to the support of Christian teachers. Throughout the document, Madison argued that people should be free to choose their own religious beliefs and practices and that the governments participation in religious issues should have limits.
The Federalist No. 10” is a persuasive argument written by James Madison in an attempt to ratify the Constitution. He wrote a series of documents called the Federalist Papers under a pseudonym to convince others to approve of the Constitution. He says that factions are not good for America, neither is a pure democracy. Madison provides extensive arguments and remedies for the problems he is addressing. James Madison is attempting to ratify the Constitution by analyzing the way to deal with factions, comparing a republic to a democracy, and by comparing a small government to a large government.
Why did the founding fathers decide to establish a democratic republic? Did they have anything to benefit from said democracy, or were they actually morally compelled to create a more perfect union to serve and protect all of the citizens of the united states? Although many of the founding fathers have left diaries, articles, and speeches behind for us to dissect and analyze, I believe that there is no better way to learn about a man 's character other than by observing his behavior first hand, and personally questioning him. That is why instead of going to see the Salem witch trials, being at Lincoln 's Gettysburg Address, or even watching the battle Saratoga, I would rather sit in and experience the four long months of debate and argument
He knew that the Articles would not be able to sustain, and they would lose everything they fought for. Madison desired to replace the Articles of Confederation as
As slavery became free in the north this soon disrupted the founding fathers beliefs of what slavery should be and this dismantled the nations stability to the core. Slaves were always beaten for any punishment to keep them in line. The founding fathers like this due to they can control the slaves out of fear. By corporal punishment spreading across America to the whites it was also the biggest thing slaves had that they were valuable to a point more Valuable than some white people which the founding fathers hated. They hated this because According to Russell he names several slaves that had killed their masters for over beating them and the resistant slaves a lot of the time was allowed to live sometime they weren’t even beaten (Pg.61-62).
1. What does Madison mean by faction and why might he have called them a "necessary evil" in a free society? Madison mean by faction are group of people that are not given the same equal freedom or same chances in living or doing their own things. Madison called them necessary evil because of without a balance and just government the society will fall. As the result, with a just and balance with equal divisions can make everything seem more functional and people will agree upon.
In the case of taxation, the more powerful of the two parties would have the opportunity to impose higher taxes on the minority, thus, saving themselves money. Madison firmly believed that the constitution had the ability to solve the problems created by factions. Madison envisioned a large republic that would make it difficult for corrupt candidates to get elected. Madison expressed this by stating, In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
James Madison wrote Federalist 51 over 200 years ago, yet its words still impact today’s government in 2016. When writing Federalist 51, Madison had two main objectives in mind; he wanted a government with a separation of powers, and he also wanted minorities to be protected. Both of his objectives have been accomplished and continue to be present in today’s American government with the latter objective being more present in today’s government even more so than in the past. To begin with, power is separated in today’s government, preventing a single person or group from having absolute power since, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” according to John Dalberg-Acton. The American government is composed of three branches which power is separated amongst.
Madison’s essay reflects the fear many had of a tyrannical government and the desire to ensure that the country didn’t revert back to that which it had just escaped from. He notes the necessity to prevent any one faction or group from gaining too much power and oppressing those in the minority. The separation of powers was set in place to ensure that this could not happen. Even if one group decides they want something, the other two have the equal authority to prevent it should it not represent the country as a whole.
The Constitution—the foundation of the American government—has been quintessential for the lives of the American people for over 200 years. Without this document America today would not have basic human rights, such as those stated in the Bill of Rights, which includes freedom of speech and religion. To some, the Constitution was an embodiment of the American Revolution, yet others believe that it was a betrayal of the Revolution. I personally believe that the Constitution did betray the Revolution because it did not live up to the ideals of the Revolution, and the views of the Anti-Federalists most closely embodied the “Spirit of ‘76.” During the midst of the American Revolution, authors and politicians of important documents, pamphlets, and slogans spread the basis for Revolutionary ideals and defined what is known as the “Spirit of ‘76”.
In the Federalist Paper number 51, Madison writes to the people of New York to explain that it is necessary for a separation of powers between the departments of the government. Madison, with the help of Hamilton, wrote the Federalist Papers to explain sections of the Constitution. In Federalist Paper number 51, Madison explains that the government does not have a strong structure on the outside, but creating a firm structure within the government could be a solution. The firmer structure would be the separation of powers. In order for the people to get a better idea and make a more accurate judgement about the separation of powers, Madison shares observations and puts them into simpler terms.
Madison brings up that it isn’t possible to divide power absolutely equally and “In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates.” (2). And so, the legislative branch will be divided even more to try and combat the unbalance of power. Madison thought this system was a good method because he believed that it was part of human nature to have conflicting ideas and wants, and so each branch could keep the others in line and therefor no one power is above the others. Furthermore, Madison believes a bigger government with multiple branches is better because then it becomes difficult for one