Topical, Educational: Federalist 51

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

I'm writing an essay on Federalist 51 at the moment -- I mean, I should be, but I'm posting here instead. *shrug* Specifically, I'm arguing at least points on how federalism promotes liberty, and two on how local control can do the same. What a hot Friday night!

 

I haven't read the The Federalist Papers since high school, and I get so much more out of them now as an adult. I really recommend that everyone take an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with Federalist 51 -- checks and balances, how our system protects against the tyranny of the majority, why being big and sprawling and full of differing viewpoints is a benefit to our nation, and why we need government.

 

I just want to take a moment to say that while Alexander Hamilton was clearly our sexiest founding father -- a stone fox -- it's Madison who makes me weak at the knees. 

 

Federalist 51

 

[TBoneTX 45,305]

Would dig your posting an abstract or bulleted summary of what you conclude.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Sure thing!

[TBoneTX 45,305]

The more depth & detail, the better.

[yuna628 9,676]

10 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

I'm writing an essay on Federalist 51 at the moment -- I mean, I should be, but I'm posting here instead. *shrug* Specifically, I'm arguing at least points on how federalism promotes liberty, and two on how local control can do the same. What a hot Friday night!

 

I haven't read the The Federalist Papers since high school, and I get so much more out of them now as an adult. I really recommend that everyone take an opportunity to reacquaint themselves with Federalist 51 -- checks and balances, how our system protects against the tyranny of the majority, why being big and sprawling and full of differing viewpoints is a benefit to our nation, and why we need government.

 

I just want to take a moment to say that while Alexander Hamilton was clearly our sexiest founding father -- a stone fox -- it's Madison who makes me weak at the knees. 

 

Federalist 51

 

I love a strong sexy man with an intelligent head on his shoulders. They don't make 'em like they used to. Would love to read it sometime, Maven.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The more depth & detail, the better.

cliff notes for some please. Still it would be very interesting. BTW thanks for your time in Lawyersplaning stuff to us. 

[Dashinka 24,512]

I am often curious as to the checks and balances on the federal judges so I look forward to the summary of this document.

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

It isn't so much a summary of Federalist 51 -- I can do this at a later time (getting ready to go for a dinner party) -- we were given the instruction to write a letter to Madison as he was drafting the essay, providing him with two reasons for stronger local control, and two for stronger federal control. So here it is:

 

Dear Mr. Madison: 

Having seen your first draft of your latest essay, I must thank you for the singular opportunity to provide you with my opinion on the topics you address therein. You present a robust case for federalism and the separation of the powers into three branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial -- to bolster the liberty of the people and provide checks and balances against tyranny. However, I do not write to flatter you; rather, this letter is to offer additional points of view for your consideration as you complete your work. To that end, I provide comments in support of an argument for a strong federal government to further liberty, and others in support of the proposition that local autonomy is the bedrock of greater liberty for the people.

 

A strong centralized government is necessary to promote greater liberty

As you rightly point out in your draft, “If men were no angels, no government would be necessary.” Government exists because in its absence, man’s tendency to oppress his fellow man will eventually come to the fore, even if such oppression occurs in the name of “liberty.” A strong federal government, divided into three branches with the power to check and balance each other, and working in hand with the state governments, will provide a check on not only the populace at large, but also the tendencies within government to centralize and strengthen power. 

 

Example 1: Consistency in law

Out of many, one -- E Pluribus Unum. We are a nation of states, born as separate entities, each retaining separate customs, peculiarities and laws. It is to the third of these I speak. While our laws may work towards similar ends -- punishing crimes, promoting commerce, dealing fairly and equitably with those who bring their cases to the courts -- there is no one consistent legal code across the states. 

 

For example, consider a merchant who wishes to establish a business in Rhode Island, which has one body of commercial law and regulations. He prospers, and wishes to expand his business to Connecticut, but finds that his business -- for whatever reason -- is economically untenable there due to a far more restrictive set of laws and regulations. Consequently, he is dissuaded from expanding there, even though Nutmeggers might want to buy his goods. Instead, he keeps his business within his own state because the lack of consistency of laws makes expansion too great of a risk. Ultimately, both the merchant loses potential revenue, and the people of Connecticut the opportunity to buy his goods.

 

If instead of a patchwork of laws, some more permissive and some less, we had one unified body of law, our merchant would know before considering expansion that his business would be treated no differently within the borders of his home state than across the border. A unified body of law promotes consistency and predictability, both of which would support the liberty of citizens by ensuring that a man or woman would know that what is acceptable activity in one part of the nation is not considered illegal in another. 

 

Example 2: A stronger federal authority will guard against excesses in the states

It has been said that the states are the laboratories of democracy, and that a state’s citizens may “try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” (If you have not heard of the case -- New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) -- I assure you, you will some day.) This is a double-edged sword. States can experiment with what works within the peculiarities of their own boundaries and laws, and grow more free and more prosperous. But what of the state that uses its powers to the detriment of its people? 

 

It is not necessary that there be evil intent behind ultimately harmful actions of state governments. Indeed, the governments of the states will probably believe they are furthering the pursuit of liberty in such activities. Consider the Jim Crow laws in the South, mandating segregation of African-Americans in access to public accommodations and access to voting, which endured well into the 1960s. Objectively, such laws are abhorrent and unconstitutional, since they are in violation of the Commerce Clause (see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), another case which will become known to you in the coming years). Yet for the states that upheld and clung to these artifacts, the laws existed for what the government believed was to promote greater liberty for its people, or at least the white portion of its population. The result was a dampening of liberty for all. A stronger federal government -- held in check by the separation of powers -- could prevent such excesses from occurring, as long as the central government itself was not prone to excesses. 

 

Local autonomy is necessary for greater liberty

Picking up my last point, a stronger central government will further the aims of liberty only if it is not prone to excesses of power. Indeed, there is a danger that a strong federal government could pose even greater risk to the people of this nation. Where a state does not act in the best interests of its people, the residents of that state are likely to be the ones who will bear the brunt of poor governance. When it is a large and distant centralized power, enforcing one set of rules encroaching upon liberties across the many states, every person within this nation is at risk of having those liberties curtailed.

 

Example 1: The tyranny of the majority

You write: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” We have seen ourselves in our recent struggle for independence what can result when the majority exercises its power against a weaker minority, for it is those who lack power who are most at risk at losing their liberty.

Imagine then that the majority is some prejudiced locality, seeking to prevent a member of a minority from exercising his or her rights. Certainly, such conduct cannot be condoned, even on a local level. But if the prejudice is localized, the person facing oppression may move to another part of the country where he or she is less likely to find his or her liberties curtailed. The recent rash of so-called “bathroom bills” that seek to limit the access of transgendered people to public facilities comes to mind.

 

Next, imagine the majority is the central government itself, armed with the full power of the military and the judiciary to restrict liberties. What chance has the person in such circumstances, if the minority is not in a protected class is merely unpopular? If federalism’s aims are to prevent consolidation of power to avoid tyranny, promoting federal strength could lead the nation down the path of tyranny once more. For it is not only the three branches of government which are necessary for the promotion of liberty, but also the power of the states to keep in check the excesses of federal strength.

 

Example 2: Distribution of power to states leads to greater and more stable governance

Again, we consider the concept of the states as laboratories of democracy, but through a different lens. Our nation is large, far larger in terms of population and geographic area, than the country from which we were born. And our size is an asset, but also a liability: being so big, we naturally need a government which is large enough to further the aims of the republic as a whole. 

 

State oversight, in tandem with federal law where necessary, is the most logical method by which to govern. State and local governments are far closer to issues that may arise within their boundaries, and will be more likely than a large central government to understand what their people need within the context of the particular locale. Being smaller, they may be able to respond more quickly to problems that arise. Further, such governments may look more like the people of a state or locality, which should not be discounted -- these are not faceless bureaucrats, but people who shop in the same supermarket, and socialize with each other. Accordingly, they may be far easier to contact and communicate with when things go wrong. Where people have a greater connection to their government, and believe it is acting in their own, personal best interests, they are likely to feel more empowered and in control of their rights.

 

With all that being said -- and I have said rather too much -- I thank you for this opportunity to present my opinions, such as they are. I hope they are of use to you, and I look forward to reading the finished article.

Yours, etc.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by elmcitymaven
Formatting

[TBoneTX 45,305]

Dear Ms Maven,

 

What, prithee, be a supermarket?

 

Yours verily,

J. Madison

[TBoneTX 45,305]

Cliff Notes version for NB:

 

Dear Mr. Madison,

 

1.  See the Tenth Amendment.

2.  Poo-poo the Tenth Amendment.

 

Sincerely,

Ms Translate-the-Lawyerspeak

Edited February 5, 2017 by TBoneTX

[TBoneTX 45,305]

Dear Ms Maven,

 

Gracias for sharing the enlightening aboveliness of language and reasoning.

 

Sincerely,

Us, All of

[TBoneTX 45,305]

Dear Mr. Madison,

 

If, every day, you walk around your house before you walk around the block, it's known as the pre-amble to your constitutional.

 

Thought you'd like to know that.

 

Sincerely,

T-B.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

14 hours ago, elmcitymaven said:

It isn't so much a summary of Federalist 51 -- I can do this at a later time (getting ready to go for a dinner party) -- we were given the instruction to write a letter to Madison as he was drafting the essay, providing him with two reasons for stronger local control, and two for stronger federal control. So here it is:

 

Dear Mr. Madison: 

Having seen your first draft of your latest essay, I must thank you for the singular opportunity to provide you with my opinion on the topics you address therein. You present a robust case for federalism and the separation of the powers into three branches of government -- executive, legislative and judicial -- to bolster the liberty of the people and provide checks and balances against tyranny. However, I do not write to flatter you; rather, this letter is to offer additional points of view for your consideration as you complete your work. To that end, I provide comments in support of an argument for a strong federal government to further liberty, and others in support of the proposition that local autonomy is the bedrock of greater liberty for the people.

 

A strong centralized government is necessary to promote greater liberty

As you rightly point out in your draft, “If men were no angels, no government would be necessary.” Government exists because in its absence, man’s tendency to oppress his fellow man will eventually come to the fore, even if such oppression occurs in the name of “liberty.” A strong federal government, divided into three branches with the power to check and balance each other, and working in hand with the state governments, will provide a check on not only the populace at large, but also the tendencies within government to centralize and strengthen power. 

 

Example 1: Consistency in law

Out of many, one -- E Pluribus Unum. We are a nation of states, born as separate entities, each retaining separate customs, peculiarities and laws. It is to the third of these I speak. While our laws may work towards similar ends -- punishing crimes, promoting commerce, dealing fairly and equitably with those who bring their cases to the courts -- there is no one consistent legal code across the states. 

 

For example, consider a merchant who wishes to establish a business in Rhode Island, which has one body of commercial law and regulations. He prospers, and wishes to expand his business to Connecticut, but finds that his business -- for whatever reason -- is economically untenable there due to a far more restrictive set of laws and regulations. Consequently, he is dissuaded from expanding there, even though Nutmeggers might want to buy his goods. Instead, he keeps his business within his own state because the lack of consistency of laws makes expansion too great of a risk. Ultimately, both the merchant loses potential revenue, and the people of Connecticut the opportunity to buy his goods.

 

If instead of a patchwork of laws, some more permissive and some less, we had one unified body of law, our merchant would know before considering expansion that his business would be treated no differently within the borders of his home state than across the border. A unified body of law promotes consistency and predictability, both of which would support the liberty of citizens by ensuring that a man or woman would know that what is acceptable activity in one part of the nation is not considered illegal in another. 

 

Example 2: A stronger federal authority will guard against excesses in the states

It has been said that the states are the laboratories of democracy, and that a state’s citizens may “try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” (If you have not heard of the case -- New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann, 285 U.S. 262 (1932) -- I assure you, you will some day.) This is a double-edged sword. States can experiment with what works within the peculiarities of their own boundaries and laws, and grow more free and more prosperous. But what of the state that uses its powers to the detriment of its people? 

 

It is not necessary that there be evil intent behind ultimately harmful actions of state governments. Indeed, the governments of the states will probably believe they are furthering the pursuit of liberty in such activities. Consider the Jim Crow laws in the South, mandating segregation of African-Americans in access to public accommodations and access to voting, which endured well into the 1960s. Objectively, such laws are abhorrent and unconstitutional, since they are in violation of the Commerce Clause (see Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States, 379 U.S. 241 (1964), another case which will become known to you in the coming years). Yet for the states that upheld and clung to these artifacts, the laws existed for what the government believed was to promote greater liberty for its people, or at least the white portion of its population. The result was a dampening of liberty for all. A stronger federal government -- held in check by the separation of powers -- could prevent such excesses from occurring, as long as the central government itself was not prone to excesses. 

 

Local autonomy is necessary for greater liberty

Picking up my last point, a stronger central government will further the aims of liberty only if it is not prone to excesses of power. Indeed, there is a danger that a strong federal government could pose even greater risk to the people of this nation. Where a state does not act in the best interests of its people, the residents of that state are likely to be the ones who will bear the brunt of poor governance. When it is a large and distant centralized power, enforcing one set of rules encroaching upon liberties across the many states, every person within this nation is at risk of having those liberties curtailed.

 

Example 1: The tyranny of the majority

You write: “It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.” We have seen ourselves in our recent struggle for independence what can result when the majority exercises its power against a weaker minority, for it is those who lack power who are most at risk at losing their liberty.

Imagine then that the majority is some prejudiced locality, seeking to prevent a member of a minority from exercising his or her rights. Certainly, such conduct cannot be condoned, even on a local level. But if the prejudice is localized, the person facing oppression may move to another part of the country where he or she is less likely to find his or her liberties curtailed. The recent rash of so-called “bathroom bills” that seek to limit the access of transgendered people to public facilities comes to mind.

 

Next, imagine the majority is the central government itself, armed with the full power of the military and the judiciary to restrict liberties. What chance has the person in such circumstances, if the minority is not in a protected class is merely unpopular? If federalism’s aims are to prevent consolidation of power to avoid tyranny, promoting federal strength could lead the nation down the path of tyranny once more. For it is not only the three branches of government which are necessary for the promotion of liberty, but also the power of the states to keep in check the excesses of federal strength.

 

Example 2: Distribution of power to states leads to greater and more stable governance

Again, we consider the concept of the states as laboratories of democracy, but through a different lens. Our nation is large, far larger in terms of population and geographic area, than the country from which we were born. And our size is an asset, but also a liability: being so big, we naturally need a government which is large enough to further the aims of the republic as a whole. 

 

State oversight, in tandem with federal law where necessary, is the most logical method by which to govern. State and local governments are far closer to issues that may arise within their boundaries, and will be more likely than a large central government to understand what their people need within the context of the particular locale. Being smaller, they may be able to respond more quickly to problems that arise. Further, such governments may look more like the people of a state or locality, which should not be discounted -- these are not faceless bureaucrats, but people who shop in the same supermarket, and socialize with each other. Accordingly, they may be far easier to contact and communicate with when things go wrong. Where people have a greater connection to their government, and believe it is acting in their own, personal best interests, they are likely to feel more empowered and in control of their rights.

 

With all that being said -- and I have said rather too much -- I thank you for this opportunity to present my opinions, such as they are. I hope they are of use to you, and I look forward to reading the finished article.

Yours, etc.

 

I actually read all of it. You should have been a lawyer. Example one made a great case for the electoral college.  

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Dear Mr. Madison,

 

If, every day, you walk around your house before you walk around the block, it's known as the pre-amble to your constitutional.

 

Thought you'd like to know that.

 

Sincerely,

T-B.

???

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

22 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

Cliff Notes version for NB:

 

Dear Mr. Madison,

 

1.  See the Tenth Amendment.

2.  Poo-poo the Tenth Amendment.

 

Sincerely,

Ms Translate-the-Lawyerspeak

 

Accurate.