10 ms·

One thing I got from reading the Federalist Papers is an understanding the the government we have is what the founders warned about and did their best to preven

One thing I got from reading the Federalist Papers is an understanding the the government we have is what the founders warned about and did their best to prevent/delay. Understanding the reasoning behind the words that are in the Constitution should be required. The Federalist papers show how much thought went into writing the Constitution. Read the Anti-Federalist Papers too. Both sides were part of the public debate. The Federalists "won" but the criticisms from the Anti-Federalists are relevant.

wslack 3y ago
> the government we have is what the founders warned about and did their best to prevent/delay. Can you say more about that? They warned against faction but political parties developed pretty quickly and had the harmful effects Hamilton warned against.
- AnimalMuppet 3y ago
  The GP may be referring to the federal government being stronger than the states, and therefore most of the power being in Washington DC rather than in the several state capitals. They also intended more power to reside in Congress and less rule by executive order.
  - tastyfreeze 3y ago
    Bingo. Congress has dangerously abdicated much of its authority to the Executive. And the federal government as a whole has more power than it was ever granted. The concentration of power has happened slowly over time but nonetheless it has happened. Now we have a federal government that has legal authority to demand compliance on a range of issues that it doesn't have Constitutional authority to demand.
- 23B1 3y ago
  They warned of tyranny of the majority, instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances), foreign influence in domestic affairs due to a weak government, and as you mentioned partisanship.
  - periphrasis 3y ago
    > instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances) This is not the argument of the federalist papers. They argue for a government with powers commensurate to its objects. They discuss at great length the dangers of a government being too weak, namely that it forces a series of usurpations because its the only way to get anything done. > They warned of tyranny of the majority Nor is this the argument of the federalist papers, for much the same reasons above. Madison and Hamilton are quite explicit that majority rule is the only way to have a functional government, and that the alternative will only lead to dysfunction and the need to seize more power to break the resulting logjams.
    - 23B1 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - periphrasis 3y ago
        From Federalist 10 "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principal, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." Madison goes on to discuss the difficulty of the situation in which faction encompasses the majority, which is likely what you're referring to. But he is VERY explicit that majority rule is one of the primary weapons against faction, and the discussion of the failures of articles of confederation and historical leagues and confederacies that occupies multiple papers makes clear that lack of majority rule is one of the great enablers of faction. edit: The guard against majority faction does NOT come from minority rule or supermajority requirements. It comes from representation, rather than direct assembly, and a large population that is geographically and politically diverse. Those are the mitigations Madison proposes in Federalist 10 for the dangers of majority faction. He's quite clear that majority rule is the only way to run a popular government and any danger it poses must be mitigated by other means, namely representation and large geographic extent.
fnordpiglet 3y ago
Hamilton (the author of most of the federalist papers) would most identify with todays left. As would Washington, and Adams. Jefferson was most identifiable with the right. I think the anti federalist papers were certainly interesting, but Jefferson’s construction of a party system in America with a strict constitutional interpretation, an emphasis on agrarian life, states rights, etc., vs Hamiltons loose constitutional interpretation, central government focus, emphasizing commerce, science, and industry, a no party system, and a firm belief in humanist liberalism is more explanatory of where we are today. Hamilton was so convinced the constitution assured freedom he did not support the bill of rights feeling it was self evident from the constitution. Interestingly it was Jefferson and Madison, sitting on the anti federalist side (not having written any of the responses afaik), pushed for the bill of rights and Hamilton initially resisted it. It was an amazing time in history, with incredible foresight but much more importantly hindsight. I highly recommend reading the federalist papers and the responses (anti federalist), but also the modern biographies of the founding fathers. They were fascinating and flawed humans, but coming away from the exercise I was convinced they set the stage for the modern world to exist.
- calgarymicro 3y ago
  Madison wasn't an Anti-Federalist; he actually wrote some of the Federalist papers himself (along with much of the constitution and Bill of Rights). He did later become a Democratic-Republican, but by then 'Federalist' meant the political party, not the pro-constitution movement.
  - fnordpiglet 3y ago
    You’re right I miswrote that. He and Jefferson felt the need for the bill of rights, while Hamilton didn’t, and they worked together on that. Madison wrote something on order of 30 of the original papers, but wasn’t entirely aligned with Hamilton.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
stevenwoo 3y ago
The tyranny of the majority that Madison complained about was because he wanted to preserve the power of rich people from all the poors. The system they created now enshrines the tyranny of the the minority due to the concessions to slave and small states.
- psunavy03 3y ago
  Motivated reasoning. In the 1790 US Census, the largest state, Virginia, was a slave state. 48.7 percent of the total free and enslaved population of the country in 1790 lived in slave states. What's more, out of the smallest 7 states by population, only one of them (Georgia) was a slave state. The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population.
  - dmead 3y ago
    The 3/5ths compromise and the Senate were to appease the slave states. I don't know where you're getting this somehow getting they were limited by this. The 3/5ths compromise gave them a sure representation in congress over a population they held as property.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      The slave states' proposal was that slaves count fully towards representation. The 3/5ths compromise lowered the representation that slave states got.
      - banana_feather 3y ago
        ...And the non slave states wanted them to not be counted at all, because counting them at all would permit slave states to exploit them to gain political power in two branches of government without having to extend them any rights. The slave states still won, they just didn't get the whole hog in this instance.
ern 3y ago
the government we have is what the founders warned about and did their best to prevent/delay It's interesting how much Americans venerate the founders. At the same time, I recall that no less a conservative jurist than Antonin Scalia thought that they made a mistake by making the constitution too hard to amend: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how_scalia_and_ginsburg_would_amend_the_constitution https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how_scalia_and_ginsb... ("Scalia said fewer than 2 percent of the population could prevent enactment of a constitutional amendment. “It ought to be hard, but not that hard") As an outsider, especially looking at how powerful the Supreme Court has become so both sides can read a seemingly inflexible document in a way that suits their purposes, did the founders foresee this?
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Judicial review -- the ability of the judiciary to declare laws "unconstitutional" -- was not explicitly granted and in the first years there was debate whether this was a power of the courts. Thomas Jefferson hated the concept, saying that the Constitution would become "as wax" in the hands of the judiciary. So...he forsaw it at least
  - dataflow 3y ago
    Here's what I've failed to quite grasp: if judicial review wasn't a thing, then what power would SCOTUS have had? Would they have just served as the "jury" for each case, but without the ability to set legal precedent for future similar cases? And if so, doesn't that mean they could still take future cases and rule the same way... just with more repeated/wasted work?
    - HWR_14 3y ago
      The Supreme Court using precedent is totally different from judicial review. Not all, or even most, of their cases today require judicial review. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled on how to interpret a law on wetlands adjacent to the waterways. Judicial review is limited to describing the Supreme Court throwing out a law as unconstitutional, as opposed to applying legal reasoning and precedent to understanding the law.
throwawaycities 3y ago
If people actually read the Federalist Papers then they’d have to stop referring to the US as a Democracy or a Constitutional Democracy and correctly refer to it as a Constitutional Republic. The Federalist Papers outline exactly why the US Constitution established a Republic and why a Democracy was insufficient. However, rereading the Federalist Papers in light of the modern technology (instantaneous information & voting) I do believe their objections to Democracy would have been overcome they might have established a Democratic form of Government over a Republic.
- cvoss 3y ago
  I'm not so sure. To get a purer form of democracy to function well, you need the voters to be well informed on so many different specialized topics while also carrying out their day jobs. With a republic, we can elect people to take on the day job of being specialized and well informed on the affairs of governing. And if we've learned any lessons from the last decade of information technology, its promise to leave us all better informed seems to have been a false promise---or at least a very mixed bag sort of promise.
- periphrasis 3y ago
  The text of Federalist 10 shows that this is not a useful distinction in our contemporary context. Madison defines the "republican principle" as majority rule, and further defines "pure democracy" as direct government by an assembly of the citizen body, i.e. Ancient Athenian Democracy, something which does not exist at any scale in the contemporary world. A republic, as Madison defines it, is one in which the citizen body elects representatives, who then carry on the work of government. In modern parlance we call this a representative democracy. Further, Madison emphasizes the vital importance of majority rule in a republic as a guard against faction, so much so that he call majority rule the "republican principle" as noted above. The bottomline is that the essential features of what Madison calls a "republic" is what the contemporary world calls a "democracy" or more specifically a "representative democracy". Insisting on calling American government a republic and not a democracy, when Madison's definition matches what we think of as a representative democracy, just obfuscates what's being discussed.
nabla9 3y ago
(I'm non-American. This is what I know. Tell me if I have anything wrong) The U.S. was one of the first modern democracies but that was 247 years ago. Now the U.S. is one of the oldest modern democracies. The U.S. constitution is supposed to kept updated with constitutional amendments. There used to be 1-2 amendments per decade, but the upgrade process has stopped. Last completed ratification was 1992 (27th congressional salary) . All significant ratification's happened over 50 years ago (voting age, civil rights). -- Programmers would call this technical debt, unmaintained codebase.

wslack 3y ago

> the government we have is what the founders warned about and did their best to prevent/delay. Can you say more about that? They warned against faction but political parties developed pretty quickly and had the harmful effects Hamilton warned against.

AnimalMuppet 3y ago
The GP may be referring to the federal government being stronger than the states, and therefore most of the power being in Washington DC rather than in the several state capitals. They also intended more power to reside in Congress and less rule by executive order.
- tastyfreeze 3y ago
  Bingo. Congress has dangerously abdicated much of its authority to the Executive. And the federal government as a whole has more power than it was ever granted. The concentration of power has happened slowly over time but nonetheless it has happened. Now we have a federal government that has legal authority to demand compliance on a range of issues that it doesn't have Constitutional authority to demand.
23B1 3y ago
They warned of tyranny of the majority, instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances), foreign influence in domestic affairs due to a weak government, and as you mentioned partisanship.
- periphrasis 3y ago
  > instability and violence from a too-powerful government (thus checks and balances) This is not the argument of the federalist papers. They argue for a government with powers commensurate to its objects. They discuss at great length the dangers of a government being too weak, namely that it forces a series of usurpations because its the only way to get anything done. > They warned of tyranny of the majority Nor is this the argument of the federalist papers, for much the same reasons above. Madison and Hamilton are quite explicit that majority rule is the only way to have a functional government, and that the alternative will only lead to dysfunction and the need to seize more power to break the resulting logjams.
  - 23B1 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - periphrasis 3y ago
      From Federalist 10 "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of faction cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects. If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principal, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote." Madison goes on to discuss the difficulty of the situation in which faction encompasses the majority, which is likely what you're referring to. But he is VERY explicit that majority rule is one of the primary weapons against faction, and the discussion of the failures of articles of confederation and historical leagues and confederacies that occupies multiple papers makes clear that lack of majority rule is one of the great enablers of faction. edit: The guard against majority faction does NOT come from minority rule or supermajority requirements. It comes from representation, rather than direct assembly, and a large population that is geographically and politically diverse. Those are the mitigations Madison proposes in Federalist 10 for the dangers of majority faction. He's quite clear that majority rule is the only way to run a popular government and any danger it poses must be mitigated by other means, namely representation and large geographic extent.

fnordpiglet 3y ago

Hamilton (the author of most of the federalist papers) would most identify with todays left. As would Washington, and Adams. Jefferson was most identifiable with the right. I think the anti federalist papers were certainly interesting, but Jefferson’s construction of a party system in America with a strict constitutional interpretation, an emphasis on agrarian life, states rights, etc., vs Hamiltons loose constitutional interpretation, central government focus, emphasizing commerce, science, and industry, a no party system, and a firm belief in humanist liberalism is more explanatory of where we are today. Hamilton was so convinced the constitution assured freedom he did not support the bill of rights feeling it was self evident from the constitution. Interestingly it was Jefferson and Madison, sitting on the anti federalist side (not having written any of the responses afaik), pushed for the bill of rights and Hamilton initially resisted it. It was an amazing time in history, with incredible foresight but much more importantly hindsight. I highly recommend reading the federalist papers and the responses (anti federalist), but also the modern biographies of the founding fathers. They were fascinating and flawed humans, but coming away from the exercise I was convinced they set the stage for the modern world to exist.

calgarymicro 3y ago
Madison wasn't an Anti-Federalist; he actually wrote some of the Federalist papers himself (along with much of the constitution and Bill of Rights). He did later become a Democratic-Republican, but by then 'Federalist' meant the political party, not the pro-constitution movement.
- fnordpiglet 3y ago
  You’re right I miswrote that. He and Jefferson felt the need for the bill of rights, while Hamilton didn’t, and they worked together on that. Madison wrote something on order of 30 of the original papers, but wasn’t entirely aligned with Hamilton.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]

stevenwoo 3y ago

The tyranny of the majority that Madison complained about was because he wanted to preserve the power of rich people from all the poors. The system they created now enshrines the tyranny of the the minority due to the concessions to slave and small states.

psunavy03 3y ago
Motivated reasoning. In the 1790 US Census, the largest state, Virginia, was a slave state. 48.7 percent of the total free and enslaved population of the country in 1790 lived in slave states. What's more, out of the smallest 7 states by population, only one of them (Georgia) was a slave state. The 2-person Senate and the 3/5ths compromise limited the power of SLAVE states to try to claim power in the Federal government by counting their slaves as population.
- dmead 3y ago
  The 3/5ths compromise and the Senate were to appease the slave states. I don't know where you're getting this somehow getting they were limited by this. The 3/5ths compromise gave them a sure representation in congress over a population they held as property.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    The slave states' proposal was that slaves count fully towards representation. The 3/5ths compromise lowered the representation that slave states got.
    - banana_feather 3y ago
      ...And the non slave states wanted them to not be counted at all, because counting them at all would permit slave states to exploit them to gain political power in two branches of government without having to extend them any rights. The slave states still won, they just didn't get the whole hog in this instance.

ern 3y ago

the government we have is what the founders warned about and did their best to prevent/delay It's interesting how much Americans venerate the founders. At the same time, I recall that no less a conservative jurist than Antonin Scalia thought that they made a mistake by making the constitution too hard to amend: https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how_scalia_and_ginsburg_would_amend_the_constitution https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/how_scalia_and_ginsb... ("Scalia said fewer than 2 percent of the population could prevent enactment of a constitutional amendment. “It ought to be hard, but not that hard") As an outsider, especially looking at how powerful the Supreme Court has become so both sides can read a seemingly inflexible document in a way that suits their purposes, did the founders foresee this?

paulddraper 3y ago
Judicial review -- the ability of the judiciary to declare laws "unconstitutional" -- was not explicitly granted and in the first years there was debate whether this was a power of the courts. Thomas Jefferson hated the concept, saying that the Constitution would become "as wax" in the hands of the judiciary. So...he forsaw it at least
- dataflow 3y ago
  Here's what I've failed to quite grasp: if judicial review wasn't a thing, then what power would SCOTUS have had? Would they have just served as the "jury" for each case, but without the ability to set legal precedent for future similar cases? And if so, doesn't that mean they could still take future cases and rule the same way... just with more repeated/wasted work?
  - HWR_14 3y ago
    The Supreme Court using precedent is totally different from judicial review. Not all, or even most, of their cases today require judicial review. For example, the Supreme Court recently ruled on how to interpret a law on wetlands adjacent to the waterways. Judicial review is limited to describing the Supreme Court throwing out a law as unconstitutional, as opposed to applying legal reasoning and precedent to understanding the law.

throwawaycities 3y ago

If people actually read the Federalist Papers then they’d have to stop referring to the US as a Democracy or a Constitutional Democracy and correctly refer to it as a Constitutional Republic. The Federalist Papers outline exactly why the US Constitution established a Republic and why a Democracy was insufficient. However, rereading the Federalist Papers in light of the modern technology (instantaneous information & voting) I do believe their objections to Democracy would have been overcome they might have established a Democratic form of Government over a Republic.

cvoss 3y ago
I'm not so sure. To get a purer form of democracy to function well, you need the voters to be well informed on so many different specialized topics while also carrying out their day jobs. With a republic, we can elect people to take on the day job of being specialized and well informed on the affairs of governing. And if we've learned any lessons from the last decade of information technology, its promise to leave us all better informed seems to have been a false promise---or at least a very mixed bag sort of promise.
periphrasis 3y ago
The text of Federalist 10 shows that this is not a useful distinction in our contemporary context. Madison defines the "republican principle" as majority rule, and further defines "pure democracy" as direct government by an assembly of the citizen body, i.e. Ancient Athenian Democracy, something which does not exist at any scale in the contemporary world. A republic, as Madison defines it, is one in which the citizen body elects representatives, who then carry on the work of government. In modern parlance we call this a representative democracy. Further, Madison emphasizes the vital importance of majority rule in a republic as a guard against faction, so much so that he call majority rule the "republican principle" as noted above. The bottomline is that the essential features of what Madison calls a "republic" is what the contemporary world calls a "democracy" or more specifically a "representative democracy". Insisting on calling American government a republic and not a democracy, when Madison's definition matches what we think of as a representative democracy, just obfuscates what's being discussed.

nabla9 3y ago

(I'm non-American. This is what I know. Tell me if I have anything wrong) The U.S. was one of the first modern democracies but that was 247 years ago. Now the U.S. is one of the oldest modern democracies. The U.S. constitution is supposed to kept updated with constitutional amendments. There used to be 1-2 amendments per decade, but the upgrade process has stopped. Last completed ratification was 1992 (27th congressional salary) . All significant ratification's happened over 50 years ago (voting age, civil rights). -- Programmers would call this technical debt, unmaintained codebase.