Jump to content

Federalist No. 51: Difference between revisions

no edit summary
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 101: Line 101:
|-
|-
|  
|  
'''''<big>But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own departmen[t]?</big>'''''
'''''<big>But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own departmen[t]? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.</big>'''''
|cell style="background-color:#ffffe6"|
|cell style="background-color:#ffffe6"|
== Why ultimate authority must reside in the Legislature, representatives of the people ==
== Why ultimate authority must reside in the Legislature, representatives of the people ==
Line 109: Line 109:
* thus the different terms of office for each
* thus the different terms of office for each


Madison then assesses (measures) a necessary constraint (block) against the authority of the legislature, as necessary check against it's overwhelming powers
Madison then assesses (measures) a necessary constraint (block) against the authority of the legislature, as necessary check against it's overwhelming powers


* Madison is here setting the justification for the executive veto (blocking a law passed by the legislature)
* Madison is here setting the justification for the executive veto (blocking a law passed by the legislature)
* He considers that the veto will be neither "altogether safe nor alone sufficient", should it
** not be used with "firmness"
** or used too much ("perfidiously abused")
* He then considers that this "defect" of the "absolute negative" (veto) might be "supplied" (fixed) by a "qualified connection" between the weaker department (the executive) and the "weaker branch of the stronger department" (the Senate?) in order to defend itself
Finally, Madison wonders that if the federal constitution is not enacted will the "State constitutions" will be "infinitely less able to bear such a test", i.e., without a federal government with checks and balances, the state governments will be susceptible to tyranny that could be avoided by enacted a system of checks and balances
* it is worth noting that the existing central government, operating under the Articles of Confederation, was a unicameral legislative system without a working executive branch. Madison's insight that the proposed federal constitution would impact state constitutions is essential.
|-
|-
|
|
'''''<big>If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.</big>'''''
|cell style="background-color:#ffffe6"|
|cell style="background-color:#ffffe6"|
== State constitutions following the US Constitution ==
== State constitutions following the US Constitution ==
Madison here argues that if the federal government ("the latter") does not observe "these principles" (of separation of powers), states ("the former") will be "infinitely less able" to withstand unrestrained power.
 
|-
|-
|
|