Why Does the American Form of Government Work?

Federalist Papers #51

James Madison: "In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people..."

My Response: In the following statement, James Madison is advocating for a governmental system where the principle of checks and balances would be adhered to. It would make sure that no individual or change of the government could gain to much power, and in doing so- allow for there to be limits in what they can and cannot do. This would help to limit oppression on the people, through unjust laws or policies- and thus preserve liberty. Even today, with the framework of separation of powers being the foundation of our system, it allows for no branch to use their power to do harm to the people. Because the branches are indirectly voted for by the people, the representation of morals and values from throughout the republic would help to sustain the principles of the United States and preserve liberty. Adapted from the ideas of Baron de Montesquieu, the separation of powers would help to stray away form the singular monarchical system of the British crown, and establish a system where the voices of the people could be heard- and used- to protect their liberties.

James Madison: "First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. 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."

My Response: In the second statement, Madison continues to support a strong national government, but ensures that the system of checks and balances would help to alleviate any tendencies for a certain branch to usurp power and commit atrocities on the people. He does, however, talk about the state government being an essential power mediator for th people, but be able to function under popular interest of the state itself. This alludes to today's governmental system, where certain states are able to administer their own laws to fit around the will of the people. For example, several states allow polygamy based on the religions in the area. This would allow for there to be greater exercise of liberty for peoples living in certain regions. However, I think it is interested that Madison addresses that the "rights of the minorities will be insecure". I think that this correlates well with today's system of state governments with the fact that so many individuals are unable, economically and socially, to change legislature to allow for their freedoms. State governments allow for there to be a bridge between both national government and the people themselves, and their individual liberties that differ on region.

Federalist Papers #10

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton: "If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."


My response: James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, here, lay out the groundwork for the Electoral System, as they allude to the fact that common citizens may not have the intellectual capacity to elect someone who would be a good choice in government. The Electoral System allows for there to be an educational choice made by a representative to cast a vote for the president. As both Hamilton and Madison believed above, if a "ruling passion" or faction is able to regularly vote, minorities are excluded from the benefits, and instead this hurts the "public good". The idea that voting should rest on education and principles that would be beneficial to the country, not only help to prevent the "clog[ing] of the administration", but also to prevent the breaching of any Constitutional values.

James Madison and Alexander Hamilton: "No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. "


My response: The passage above highlights the importance of an even, moral groundwork for the judicial system to function on. The passage embodies the idea that biases would corrupt both the individual's integrity, but also harm the legislative processes, trial processes, and of course the function of a government. The idea that justice would help to pass fair legislation, non infiltrated with ideas of the corrupt, would help preserve the natural liberties of the people. For example, judges who are found to be taking bribes or have a predisposition or knowledge about a certain case would be breaking the conduct for preserving natural liberty by acting on their own volition.