These analyze and defend the new Constitution. They are the most comprehensive of the Federalists’ writings, written under the pen-name “Publius.”
Hamilton originated the project to sway ratification debate in New York—really didn’t have that effect, but was used as debaters’ guide in Virginia, etc. Good example of how Federalists reasoned. It is not the definitive statement of all Founders.
All Federalist papers share certain view of human motivation/thinking—Constitution is response to perceived features of human psyche.
It both evaluated and described—moral psychology—most human motives can be placed either in passion, interest, or virtue according to the authors of the Constitution
Motives from virtue: (humans are not always trustworthy or unashamed of virtue)
a. inner trait or disposition of character that causes one to behave a certain way (e.g., a spiritual disposition that causes retreat from public life, as with the ancient Christian hermits)
b. Federalists usually were thinking about virtue in terms of public virtue—disposition of character which encourages one to resist temptations to place one’s own good above the common interest—(sense of right and wrong in relation to one’s neighbours; willingness to work to preserve the new nation whatever the cost to one’s own individual interests—could be reason why some groups like Quakers were persecuted early on in the colonies)
c. “reasonable,” “enlightened,” or “wise” are all used to usually refer to virtue
d. Civic virtue = dedication to the law
Motives from Interest:
a. how one’s material well-being will benefit from certain things
b. calm, cool, calculated pursuit of personal interest—everything is planned
Motives from Passion:
a. powerful emotion that floods the soul—pretty dangerous because it often leads to unchecked deeds (one will do whatever it takes to have one’s will be done, even if his deeds are reckless and arbitrary; responds to the heat of the moment rather than to the larger picture)
b. Founders’ desire to keep passion out of politics; any passion in private life could affect public life; Hamilton reasoned that there was no private passion that did not have an effect on politics.
Hamilton’s belief that we can’t determine a person’s motives simply from his/her speaking/writing.
Each motive (Virtue, Interest, Passion) is affected by other factors (e.g., opinion). Federalists observed there’s a catastrophe in way motives operated; they wanted virtue to be the strongest and passion the weakest. The problem was that the roles were reversed with passion being the strongest and virtue the weakest.
Virtuous teachers operate privately; the government cannot make people virtuous (this is in contrast to the ancient Greek idea that participation in political society was the only way a man or woman could become virtuous). Federalists believed there was a fixed quantity of virtue to be tapped into, but there was not enough. They also believed interests could be directed to the public good with the proper incentives.
*Passion could not be directed by incentives, so we have to design the political institutions so that passions will not arise and virtuous people are more likely to get into office.
Federalist Strategy:
1. make the most of what little virtue there is—no republic could remain a republic without some virtue among the public. Small electoral districts are not as likely to elect virtuous people. Large electoral districts => less likelihood of bribery working, etc.; Feds. believed the legislature should be composed of the best of the people, not a mirror of the people in general
2. manipulate interest so that, despite itself, it serves the common good => institution of checks and balances
3. prevent passion from flaring (avoid large groups [in government] where people are more likely to erupt into passion) Keep representative legislature small, and rely on large representative electoral districts
4. delay decision-making until passion subsides (lawmaking is made as slow as possible)
Federalist Paper #10—Faction as a disease that kills republics (America is already in the initial condition of this disease)
Faction is a number of citizens whether in majority or minority, united or actuated by common interest or passion and adverse to rights of other citizens or to the aggregate community. A group is not a faction unless it satisfies all these qualifications and its goals are “bad.” There is NO GOOD FACTION.
A group motivated by (public) virtue is not a faction
Faction is not a problem that can be left untreated—must remove the cause or control its effects.
A. Not possible to remove the cause—must remove the effects, because there are only two ways to remove the cause; both are unfeasible
i. Rid liberty which is essential to factions (freedom of speech, assembly)—it can be done, but it’s worse than the disease itself
ii. Make everyone of the same opinion, passions, and interests (leave no chance to organize factions)—cannot be done at all because of the nature of human passions and fallibility of human reason and human love for themselves and because of how interests arise—people differ in their abilities (in kind and in degree), therefore people will acquire different kinds of property as they apply their abilities in kind; different amounts of property will vary with degrees of ability. Thus interests are not going to be the same for everyone.
B. Control Effects—modern legislation is all about regulating factions; not always going to have “enlightened statesmen.” Ordinary mortals cannot be trusted to be impartial judges when their own interests are at stake
i. If faction is a minority, it can be controlled by majority rule
ii. If faction is majority, one must keep its members from discovering they have the same interests and passions at the same time
1. Problems with direct democracy—everyone meets face to face and knows the passions and interests of everyone else
2. Republic can prevent majority from having same passions and interests and it can prevent them from knowing they do
a. Representation makes filtration possible
b. Representation make it possible to maintain union over a greater and growing population
c. Greater size increases diversity among the citizens—less likely that one faction is going to contain a majority (Madison does not anticipate political logrolling—basically a faction forming in Congress or a system of quid-pro-quo)
d. Because factions seek clashing goals, they keep each other from passing bad laws—only those that promote the common good will be passed
e. Even if a geographically dispersed majority of citizens did have a common interest, they would be unlikely to discover the fact because of the nation’s size (this has weakened in the electronic age)
f. Representation makes filtration more efficient because representation makes large size possible. If electoral districts are the wrong size, the chances are better for a worse person to be elected
g. Greater Option Argument: the larger the district, the wider the range of people to choose from
h. Freer Suffragist Argument: Uncorrupted by bribes (voters can still be bought, but in larger districts it becomes very costly) (Obviously, the founders did not anticipate expensive modern campaigns and electronic media)
i. Impartiality Argument: Small districts allow for more attachment to local interests, making it more difficult to consider what’s best for nation
Federalist Paper #51: Power is of an encroaching nature and will attempt to swallow all other powers in its way
Solution 1:
a. give each branch a will of its own without divorcing it from the authority of the people
b. make sure they have as little to do with the selection of members of the other or payment of the salaries of the others
Solution 2:
a. give members of each branch the ability to defend themselves against encroachments of the others—to the weakest branches go the strongest powers of self-defense
b. to external checks on the strongest branch (legislative), add internal checks (bicameral system)
c. if strongest branch is still too powerful, consider an alliance between the other two
Solution 3:
Give each branch motive to use the tools of self-defense
Federalism: system of government in which at least two separate levels of government share responsibility for governing the same people in the same territory.
A. History of Federalism
a. Initial role in the Constitution: providing for a strong central government yet not scaring off the states (preservation of the Union)
b. 10th Amendment: anything not covered in Constitution is automatically left to the states to decide
c. National government power:
i. McCullough v. Maryland—doctrine of implied powers
ii. Nullification—reverse of the supremacy clause/belief that the states can nullify national laws
d. Dual Federalism: very clear definition of sphere of national government and sphere of state government/ indestructible states
e. Cooperative Federalism: a true sharing of responsibility between the levels of government. Government begins to provide aid to the states, etc. Governmental overlap results. (c. 1937).
f. New Federalism: giving power back to the states—more flexibility and more control over public policies.
i. E.g. block grants and general revenue sharing. –All cut back the power of national control.
ii. Unfunded government mandates—federal government makes a mandate, states have to devise way of funding it
B. Implementation of Federalism
a. Direct orders to the states that the states must comply with (e.g. minimum wage laws, etc.)
b. Pre-emption: national government will extend its authority to pre-empt states’ powers
i. Partial pre-emption: national government sets minimum standards that states must meet (e.g. environmental regulations; minimum wages)
c. Grants-in-aid: national government giving money to local and state government for specific problems
i. Categorical grant: very specific policy to be adhered to for acceptance of money; detailed spending procedures
ii. Block grants: do not detail how the states may spend their money to address specific problems
iii. General revenue sharing: national government shares revenues with the states, no strings attached (this provision was revoked in 1986)
iv. Grants-in-aid are distributed through
1. Project Grants: national government sends money to states for a specific project
2. Formula Grants: national government sends money to states based upon a specific formula (matching money where part of formula may involve national government matching states’ spending)
SPECIFICITY OF GRANT
Categorical Block
|
Midnight Basketball ($xx,xxx,xxx) |
PROJECT GRANTS |
Fight Crime ($xx,xxx,xxx) |
|
Midnight Basketball/crime rate, # of participants |
FORMULA GRANTS |
Fight Crime/crime rate, # of participants |
Federal Government strings attached to money sent to the states
1. Cross-cutting requirements: a requirement put in one area carries over to area of funding (applies existing standards)
2. Cross-over sanctions: federal government puts specific conditions on federal money, e.g. drinking age must be 21 or no highway funding may be received. (sets new standards)
Advantages of a Federal System:
1. checks on power of national government
2. citizens have different venues through which to influence government
3. flexibility—different ways to solve problems in different areas
4. experimentation—mess up only a fraction, not the whole
5. choice over laws, lifestyles, etc. (e.g., taxes)
Disadvantages of a Federal System:
1. complex, complicated—different rules in different states, etc.
2. minorities can be neglected (e.g., poll taxes, literacy tests, etc.)
3. reduction in accountability
4. lack of coordination in policy (e.g., gun control/concealed weapons laws)
5.
inefficient/duplication
(e.g., educational policies)
6.
state
competition