Online Assignment

Monday 9/27

The Federalist Papers 1787-1788

-85 articles written for the New York public to persuade them to ratify the Constitution

-Of the 85 James Madison wrote 29, Alexander Hamilton wrote 51, and John Jay wrote five (he was ill at the time)

Madison’s contribution we went over last class. This class is devoted to Hamilton’s contribution (We will spend more time discussing Hamilton himself in a few weeks)

-Four of Hamilton’s articles are included: no.’s 15, 21, 23, 78

-#‘s15, 21, 23 are focused on pointing out the weaknesses of the present government under the articles of Confederation, and advocating the stronger national government, or in Hamilton’s terms, energetic government, that is designed in the Constitution.

-#78 is an early defense of the principle of judicial review which gives power to the Supreme Court to strike down laws or other actions that contradicts the Constitution

-The Federalist Papers is still regarded as the authoritative interpretation of the Constitution, or in other words, it gives you the best glimpse of what the intentions were of the people who made the Constitution (especially Madison and Hamilton). This is important because in contemporary debates there is still dispute over ideas like judicial review and whether or not it should be allowed because it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution. Reading the Federalist Papers (or simply just The Federalist) shows that it was obviously intended by the architects of the Constitution

Questions: What were the flaws of the government under the Articles of Confederation that Hamilton was specifically concerned with? Why was a strong national government the solution to the problems that Hamilton saw?

Consider the following quote by Hamilton from no. 15 (p. 112), “Power controlled or abridged is almost always the rival and enemy of that power by which it is controlled or abridged”.

-Hamilton was saying this about state governments disobeying the central government, what point was he trying to make?

In Federalist 23, (p. 116) Hamilton says this about the union, the term used to describe the national government as representing all the states together: “The principal purposes to be answered by union are these--the common defense of the members; the preservation of the public peace, as well against internal convulsions as external attacks; the regulation of commerce with other nations and between the States; the superintendence of our intercourse, political and commercial, with foreign countries”.

-Hamilton defines four purposes for the union, what are they and how is the union supposed to make good on its purposes? What are the weaknesses that make the present system of government unable to fulfill these goals?

-“Internal convulsions” is most likely a reference to Shay’s Rebellion, what was this incident about and does it justify Hamilton’s fears? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion

Hamilton was much more comfortable using military force than most of the other founders, even George Washington. Consider this quote also from Federalist 23: “The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, because it is impossible to foresee or define the extent and variety of national exigencies, or the correspondent extent and variety of the means to which may be necessary to satisfy them” [Hamilton’s italics].

-What is the point Hamilton is trying to make here, and how would you evaluate this argument. In other words, do you agree or disagree, how does he make his point, etc? Again how is the government under the Articles of Confederation unable to meet these kinds of challenges?

In Federalist 78, Hamilton gives his argument for judicial review. He says, “There is no position which depends on clearer principles, than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do no authorize, but what they forbid”.

Also: “A Constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents”

-How does this relate back to the idea of separation of powers and checks and balances, which define the American system?

-Although Hamilton invokes “the people” to justify the power of the courts over the legislature, the courts were often times used to strike down laws that were seen as hurtful to business interests. Since the legislature was more democratic there were fears that popular interests would pass laws to redistribute wealth or tax profits more.

In current debates the role of courts in protecting moneyed interests against the rest of the population still seems to be strong, like this editorial in the New York Times says: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

Plus Hamilton’s strict adherence to the Constitution guarantees the superiority of lawyers in virtually all branches of government, thus making government more elitist (Hamilton was a lawyer also).

Assignment: Read the Constitution and summarize on your blogs one of the seven articles that make up the Constitution or the ten amendments that make up the Bill of Rights (added to the Constitution in 1791, which Hamilton opposed btw). This will take the place of your reflection paper for the week.

Some General Questions

Was Jefferson misleading us when he wrote 'The Declaration of Independence'? Since early liberals like Jefferson thought that 'interdependence' created by social relations would provide necessary order, making us dependent on each other. How can we be independent and interdependent at the same time? Were people in Jefferson's day more independent than we are now?

Generational conflict (old v. young) seems to be one of the strongest themes in Thomas Paine's writing. Since there are more generations alive now than ever before (about 5 living generations in U.S. right now), is generational conflict becoming, or has already become, the main source of division in American society today? If this is true, you would have to consider to what extent do other forms of conflict like class conflict (rich v. poor), ethnic conflict, racial conflict, gender and sexuality conflict, all fall under conflict between older and younger generations?

A lot of Paine's writing is devoted to attacking tradition which is obviously related to conflicts between generations. For conservatives, traditions are very important, in fact the term 'conservatism' itself comes from conserve, as in conserving or preserving traditions. The founder of 'conservatism' is Edmund Burke who was writing during the French Revolution which he condemned because it marked the ultimate destruction of tradition (remember the French even restarted their calendars so much did they want to wipe out traces of the past). Paine's book The Rights of Man, part of which is included in the coursepacket was written directly in response to Burke. For radicals like Paine, the past was only holding us back since the past for them was just a history of oppression and domination by kings and other forms of hereditary succession. The American Revolution in the eyes of radicals marked a break from the past, in a literal sense, that breaking away from England was breaking away from the past. In many ways that may have been true in 1776 or 1783 or even 1789 (when the Constitution is ratified), but the past is a presence for people living in 2010, so what kind of relationship should people have to the past and to traditions today?

Religion and Political Rights

Religious toleration was the primary concern of early colonial leaders like Roger Williams, the legacy of debates like this continue into the present. Still it is not always easy to distinguish those who are tolerant and those who are intolerant, many times these conflicts are played out within the same person. Take John Locke for example who besides being the great champion of human rights and government by consent of the people, also thought that Catholics should be denied the right to vote. Part of this is because of the unique dynamics of English political life, the political battle lines were basically drawn between Catholics and Protestants (Locke was a Puritan).

But on another level, this distrust of Catholics stems from Locke's belief that they were unfree people. They were subservient to the Catholic Church and they were subservient to the local authorities and political bosses, so the argument went. The fear was that they would bring their unfree ways of doing things with them, corrupting good political institutions and ruin things for those who are truly free. In many ways this idea carries into the present on contemporary debates on immigration. Not coincidentally the immigrant groups that have received the most attention and controversy, past and present, have been from Catholic countries or regions--Ireland, Italy, and now Latin America. So that problems like the mafia for example were believed to be directly caused by the Italians lack of political freedom and dependence on local power brokers for protection and advancement. As recently as the 1960s when John F. Kennedy was running for President, conservatives warned that he would swear his allegiance to the Pope (The modern version of this is calling President Obama a Muslim).

How would you evaluate this claim that unfree people bring their unfree ways of doing things with them? If people come from a background that is not democratic is it harder for them to learn the ways of democratic political life?

Natural Rights

Sometimes it is good to consider things from an outside perspective because they notice things that those who are brought up from the inside take for granted. Consider this statement from Liang Qichao, an early 20th century Chinese scholar on the idea of 'sticking up for your rights':

If an Englishman traveling to the European continent is one day asked to pay an irrational charge by the hotel's carriage driver, in every case he will resolutely scold the driver. If the driver will not heed his scolding the Englishman will struggle for justice without tiring always preferring to extend his stay; even if his room charges were to increase as much as tenfold he would not cease. Unknowing people all laugh at this great fool but none of them understand that this person's struggle over a few schillings is in fact a vital part of what allows the nation of England to stand tall by itself in the world.

What do you think the meaning is of Liang's statement? What kind of commonsense practical value does he see in human rights? How does a strong 'culture of rights' contribute to a strong public? These are just some things you might want to consider as we get things going. The idea of natural rights was something we spent a lot of time discussing last class and as you will see it will continue to be an important theme in class. Remember at the most fundamental level the purpose of the Lockean inspired American political system as designed by the founders was to protect natural rights. It is impossible to understand American politics without understanding the importance of natural rights.

Wallwisher

Welcome to POL 166

Welcome to POL166, the American Political System. This course is designed as a broad survey of American national government and politics. Starting from the historical foundations of the American government we will trace its historical development from colonial times to the present. We will focus on the conflict between the values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution with the realities of political life in American history.
This course will examine the structure as well as the functions and purposes of the American political system. It will also examine some of the historical struggles to gain access and the right to participate in the American political system. The challenges are to be able to explain the mechanics of the American political system as well as to understand the changing nature of the functions and purposes it has served throughout history. The changing nature of the American political system cannot be understood without accounting for the inclusion of social groups that had at one point been excluded from participation.