Reading Queries
Tocqueville
I,I,8 Advantages of the Federal system, 68-73.
Note one of the fundamental analytic categories Tocqueville uses: large and small.
1. Size matters. How is size important to representative democracy?
2. In what ways does the wrong size corrupt?
3. Why are large nations more likely to have great achievements
and advance civilization?
4. Why, despite its size, is the US not like a large nation?
5. Do you think Tocqueville's remarks imply the US is no longer
(in 2003) a democracy?
I,ii, preface, 1 & 2 73-79
Note here the (modest) appearance of another categorial pair: motion and rest.
1. In part two, Tocqueville passes from a description of American
government to
2. Tocqueville uses two pairings to describe parties: there are
great parties and small parties, there are parties that extend
and parties that restrain popular power. What are the characteristics
of each kind?
3. Chapter 2 closes with notes on the political role of the rich.
What do you make of Tocquevillle's remarks?
4. Compare Tocqueville's remark "parties are an evil inherent
in free government" with Federalist 10.
Federalist Essays
Federalist 1, Alexander Hamilton
1. Hamilton marks the present (1787) as a historical moment
where the possibility of what will be decided?
2. He then identifies several obstacles to the adoption of the
Constitution.
3. What is the problem in ¶ 4?
4. At the end of ¶4, Hamilton alludes to Locke's Letter
of Toleration, namely that violence is impotent against opinion.
Why?
5. In the middle of ¶5, Hamilton identifies two important
points that are "apt to be forgotten" in the debate,
namely
6. In Hamilton's view, which has traditionally enabled tyrants
to take power, government or liberty?
7. ¶6 says the Constitution offers the "safest course
for ? And ¶7 outlines the original plan for the Federalist
Papers.
Federalist 10, James Madison
This is the first essay of Madison in the series.
1. "[of the advantages of Union] none deserves to be more
accurately developed than its tendancy to break and control the
violence of factions." Why is this the most salient advantage?
2. Towards the end of ¶1 there occurs the phrase "the
superior force of an interested and overbearing majority"
Explain the terms: "superior force" and "interested."
3. What is Madison's definition of faction?
4. Madison neatly lays out a complex disjunctive syllogism to
argue how best to address faction. The syllogism makes use of
the terms: cause, effect, liberty of opinion, sameness of opinion,
prevent faction, disable faction. Try your hand at figuring out
the syllogism (see note below).
5. No man can judge his own case. This is why judges are always
some other person. Why won't this work in a democracy?
6. Why is democracy powerless against faction? (Readers of Rousseau,
note the explicit critique of Rousseau!).
7. What is the key factor that "controls" faction in
the US (according to Madison)?
8. Disjunctive syllogism: Either A or B. Not A. Therefore B.
Federalist 6, Alexander Hamilton
1. Hobbes had claimed more than a century earlier (in 1651
during the English Civil War) that the fundamental political reality
of a plurality of individuals is competition, and this competition
is conflict ("a war of all against all").
2. ¶3 lists three main causes of hostility among countries.
They are
3. Subsequent paragraphs give evidence. Note the evidence is from
history. Last semester, I asked my students, which is most important
for politics: past, present or future? Your answer?
4. ¶9 advances a claim popular among economic conservatives
nowadays (The Economist magazine is quite fond of this
claim): commercial republics ("free market economies")
are naturally more gentle; economic competition is not violent
like military conflict. The Economist used to phrase this
as the principle that "no two countries with a McDonalds
restaurant have gone to war." The McDonalds claim is no longer
true. What does Hamilton do with the claim?
5. ¶15 is a brief look at the claim that only bad leaders
promote conflict; "the people" are naturally pacific.
His examples may seem obscure to you. Can you cite other, more
recent (than 1787) examples where popular enthusiasm, rather than
manipulative or tyrannical leaders, have pushed a country into
war?
Federalist 8, Alexander Hamilton
1. Recall the claim made by "Centinal" that one of
the great dangers in the Constitution is the standing army.
2. What exactly, according to Centinal was that danger?
3. What is the danger according to Hamilton?
4. What evidence is there in the 20th century for the truth of
the last sentence in ¶5?
5. Why is the US situation more like Great Britian than like a
country on the European continent?
6. Would Hamilton be critical of the current "standing army"?
(See Eisenhower's famous speech on the "military-industrial
complex," especially Part IV: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/presiden/speeches/eisenhower001.htm)
Federalist 23, Alexander Hamilton
1. Hamilton clearly shows his "Federalist" colors
here. Pay particular attention to ¶s 5-6.
2. ¶3 states the two primary purposes of a national government.
They are
3. ¶4 states in italics an important consideration for political
covenants (and relevant to any contract). What is the claim?
4. What is the solution in the Constitution that repairs the weakness
of the Articles of Confederation? (in ¶8)
5. Can you state in just one line the point of the long question
that starts ¶10?
6. ¶11 states a severe problem for any social contract view
of government, namely can citizens entrust a government with powers
sufficient to effectively achieve the goals they set for that
government? How might this consideration modify a citizen's expectations
and requests of his or her government?
7. Lastly, a fundamental question: read the last full sentence
of ¶5. Are the categories "means" and "ends"
appropriate to politics? In class I will argue that they are not.
Here I ask you to sketch a reason why they are appropriate or
why not.
Federalist 39, James Madison
1. ¶2 compares the US to four other supposed republics.
(It is interesting to see what passed for a republic in 1787!)
The four are .
2. ¶3 gives Madison's definition of a republic. Note that
there is both a definition (what is it?), and a statement of necessary
("essential") and sufficient conditions (what
are they?)
3. Madison raises the issue of whether the new government would
be national or federal? What is meant by the two
terms? Who was on which side?
4. In ¶8 Madison lays out what will be examined in the rest
of the paper. Note the parallel to his complicated syllogism in
Federalist 10. Be able to match the terms national
or federal to each branch of the federal government.
Federalist 31, Alexander Hamilton
1. This is the second of seven Papers on the topic of
taxation (#s 30-36).
2. Hamilton begins with several paragraphs on self evident axioms
("maxims"). Once you have read the whole of the essay,
answer why he spends more than 1/4th of it on this topic?
3. ¶10 states one of the objections to giving the federal
government taxing power, namely ?
4. In ¶11, what is Hamilton's stock answer to fears of too
much power placed in the hands of government?
5. And in ¶12, Hamilton points to the ultimate sovereign
that will, in any case, deal with usurpations of power, namely
?
6. Where in the Constitution is the federal government granted
the power to tax?
Federalist 55, James Madison
1. Madison here takes up the question of representation, of
which he says "no political problem is less susceptible of
a precise solution."
2. ¶1 lists four objections to the House of Representatives.
Note the four.
3. He surveys various solutions in the colonies, then gives in
¶3 the most precise statement he can of the ratio (of representative
to represented). Can you find the sentence where he states the
formula?
4. The last sentence of ¶3 rules out any real democracy.
Why is real democracy impossible?
5. In ¶7 Madison gives his argument (echoed by Hamiltion
in #s 23 and 31) why one ought trust the House of Representatives.
That argument is ?
Federalist 57 James Madison
1. Another remarkable essay by Madison (cf. #10), this one
on democratic representation.
2. Interestingly, the opening sentence of ¶3 give a definition
of a regime (a "constitution") that is quite classical:
a regime is to promote virtue and to have the better rule the
worse. The next ten paragraphs explain how elected representation
will promote this!
3. Paragraphs 4-12 list five reasons why elected representation
will secure representative that will work, on the whole, for the
common good. Track the five reasons!
4. ¶13 claims that if this system fails, then the people
deserve the deprivation of liberty by their representatives. What
think you of the claim?
5. From ¶15 to the end, the argument is against the accusation
that the representatives are too remote from the voters. Madison
answers this by showing that the Constitution is no worse than
the constitutions of the various colonies. Do you think the objection
might hold today?
Federalist 62, James Madison
1. This essay is on the Senate which is designed for stability.
What is unstable about the House of Representatives? (Keep in
mind how the Senate was chosen before the 16th Amendment.)
2. The difference between the House and Senate is probably the
most famous compromise in the Constitution between a federal
and national government (remember the terms?). The Senate
accommodates which interest? How? (See remarks in ¶3-6.)
3. Beginning with ¶8, Madison gives four reasons to have
a second legislative branch. They are?
4. ¶16 offers a most interesting insight on who benefits
most from a fickle, democratic government, namely ,,,
Federalist 78, Alexander Hamilton
1. Lastly, a quick look at the Judiciary, the weakest branch
of government and the sketchiest part of the Constitution (take
a look at Article III). The main point argued in this essay is
that federal judges should hold their offices during good behavior.
What does the term mean?
2. Why is the Judiciary the weakest branch of government? (See
¶7 & ¶8.)
3. The most important function of the Judiciary is judicial review.
Note that this is not in the Constitution. Note that it is explicitly
claimed and argued for in this essay. What is "judicial review"?
(See ¶9-13).
4. One of the conservative arguments today is that judges should
be "strict constructionists" and interpret the Constitution
according to its "original intent." The position is
that judges should not "develop" constitutional law
nor "revise" the sense of the Constitution by newer
interpretations. Judges who do this are "activist" judges.
For conservatives, the notorious example of an "activist"
Supreme Court is the "Warren Court" that handed down
"Brown v. Board of Education," banned prayer in public
schools, ruled that every defendent must have a lawyer and can
consult this lawyer before any police interrogation, and in "Miranda"
that the arresting officer must inform the accused of these rights.
What is Hamilton's view on this issue? What is your view?
5. Lastly, did anyone catch Hamilton's criticism of the current
federal judges who have supported the Bush administration suspension
of Miranda rights?
There are many more Federalist papers we have not read. I encourage you to read a few others or better yet, read all of them. Read ones relevant to some topic you are interested in. The conservative movement of the past 20 years has promoted the study of these writings, but I think they and you will be surprised at what you find in these papers.
In the essays we have read of Hamilton, Madison, and Tocqueville,
two common themes are clear:
a) the issue of the natural bias, prejudice, faction in politics
as a problem and source of problems, and
b) the threat to liberty of government authority.
Choose one of these topics and write a two-page (typed) essay
expaling the problem and evaluating the response of one or more
of the writers. You may use the following three questions as a
way of organizing your essay:
i. What is the problem?
ii. What is the solution?
iii. What is the method or means of implementing the solution?