“In
republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The
remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different
branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different
principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of
their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.”(Federalist
Paper No. 51)
James
Madison main conclusion is this passage is that the need for a bi-cameral
legislative system. The bi-cameral legislature notion is the foundation of the
legislative structure that is active in Washington today. Interestingly, this
idea also solved a major issue for the founding fathers. Many of the smaller
states desired a one-house system where by each states received the same number
of representatives. However, the larger states argued that voting should be
determined by population size. The idea of a House of Representatives and the
Senate was implemented to American politics ensuring that each state would be
represented equally.
“To what expedient,
then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary
partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the
Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior
provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so
contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several
constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each
other in their proper places.”(Federalist Paper No. 51)
James
Madison introduces the idea of separate, yet equal parts for the new
government. What essentially is being described is a structure of government
that has different branches that maintain the means of “keeping each other in
their proper places.” In other words a government where no one section of the
government is more powerful than another, each section has the power to curtail
the decision of the other. Thus Madison provides a solution for maintaining
that the republic will not slip into the hands of an autocrat or completely
crumble. This idea of isolating each branch to the point that they cannot
impact another yet still check each other is paramount to the success of this
form of government.
“A landed interest, a
manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many
lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them
into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation
of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern
legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and
ordinary operations of the government.”(Federalist Paper No. 10)
Madison explains
his concern over the eventual establishment of political parties and states
that modern legislation is necessary for the to limit the influence of these
groups. He outlines the task of the legislative branch; to make sure that no
“interest” or party gains too much influence or power. Yet the legislative
branch must not exclude any party for the “necessary and ordinary operations of
the government” By finding an equilibrium between these two factors the
government provides every party equal say but also prevents any one group form
total control.
“In the
first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the
representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against
the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to
a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude.”(Federalist
Paper No. 10)
In this excerpt, Madison contests that a there must always
be a majority representing the interests of the people. He states that the government
is susceptible to destruction if the pursuits of a few could take priority over
those of the people. However, there are
two sides to the same coin. He contends that the government must not also reach
a size where it can no longer function and as he puts “guard against the
confusion of a multitude. This delicate balance safeguards the integrity of the
government, while also assuring that it will remain effective when representing
the interests of the people.
Your text is dark, so I cannot read what you have written easily. Although, form what I have read our ideas seem similar, I do not see any big diffrences in thought.
ReplyDeleteI want to contribute to your statement, which i totally agree with by the way, by offering the idea that this form of conflict about representation in the government has occurred many times through history. The colonist's "No taxation without representation" slogan is a prime example. They did not receive enough, actually no, representation in the political system in England. We can also apply this common dispute to present day property tax issues. For example, in the Santa Clara county, there are land owners that live out of state, but still want representation in the Santa Clara system. Are we to let them be represented, despite where they live?
ReplyDeleteI hope this helped further your knowledge by my connections to other times in history:)