home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Date sent: Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:14:08 -0600
-
- Name: FED31.TXT
- Uploader: John Pozadzides
- EMail: johnpoz@ix.netcom.com
- Language: English
- Subject: American Federalism
- Title: Discussion of Federalist No. 31
- Grade: 94%
- System: University
- Age: 25
- Country: US
- Comments:
- Where I got Evil House of Cheat Address: Newsgroup
-
-
- Publius, in the Federalist No. 31, argues effectively against any limits upon the federal
- government save for, "...a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people." In
- fact, Publius is so opposed to the idea of limiting the power and authority of the federal
- government, that he and Malcom X would have agreed splendidly on the catch phrase, "...by
- any means necessary...." Publius' argument that, "...the means ought to be proportioned to
- the end..." sums and simplifies the entire argument at hand. To what extent should
- governmental power be unlimited? To an extent equal to the task it is asked to accomplish.
- If one were to seek justice, the government should be able to provide laws, judges and
- consequences. If one were to seek assistance, the government should be able to provide
- help, comfort or relief. And should one ask for protection, the government must possess
- the ability to attack, defend and preserve life. In short, it is as necessary to provide
- the government with the means to accomplish the tasks it is assigned- as it is to provide
- grain to a farmer that is expected to grow wheat. Therefor, the logical limit to
- governmental power should be easily calculated by determining the uppermost limit of what
- might be required to perform the most serious task it is charged with. Arguably, this task
- could be assumed to be national defense. Given a serious enough threat to national defense,
- it is foreseeable that a time might come when the government would have to utilize all of
- the nations' resources to defend it's own borders and protect it's own citizens. In that
- case, the government would need the right to take land, institute martial law, and even
- institute a draft. Certainly a government could ask no more of an individual than to give
- all of his possessions and even his life. No reasonable person would argue that the
- citizens of any nation would be better off if the borders were left defenseless with
- intruders knocking on the door. The question is not whether or not a government requires
- unlimited powers, but whether or not it is wise to then give unlimited power to it. After
- all, it would seem reasonable to assume that putting all of your eggs in one basket is
- dangerous. Publius points out,
- "I repeat what I have observed in substance in another place that all observations founded
- upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the
- government not to the nature or extent of its powers." So if you might one day have to
- carry all your eggs at one time, make sure you consider all the possible perils and design a
- basket capable of surviving them.
- In continuing this train of thought, a government with unlimited powers has the ability to
- and runs the risk of abusing its powers. However, Publius' overriding theme throughout the
- Federalist Papers has been that the people of America will choose the brightest and most
- worthy representatives. And that must negate this concern. In Federalist 55 Publius says,
-
- "I am unable to conceive that the people of America in their present temper, or under any
- circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the
- choice of sixty-five or an hundred men, who would be desposed to form and pursue a scheme of
- tyranny or treachery."
- Finally, it all boils down to one simple point: eventually the people must put their trust
- somewhere. If the government is to be charged with the most serious of tasks, it must be
- provided with enough power to complete them. Likewise, if the people are really capable of
- choosing the best and the brightest from among themselves to rule, then who is more
- trustworthy then those chosen?
-