This is a continuation of my series 15 Things You Must Read Before Voting.
ABOUT
Professors George W. Carey (Georgetown University) and James McClellan (The University of London) nicely divided The Federalist into four parts:
Part I: Federalist Papers 1-14, “Advantages of a More Perfect Union”
Part II: Federalist Papers 15-22, “Weaknesses of the Existing Confederation”
Part III: Federalist Papers 23-36, “Powers That Should Be Exercised b a National Government”
Part IV: Federalist Papers 37- 85, “Why the Proposed Constitution Conforms with the Principles of Republicanism and Good Government.”
They further break down Part IV into eight sub-sections:
• The General Form of Government (37-40)
• The Powers of Government (41-46)
• The Separation of Powers (47-51)
• The House of Representatives (52-61)
• The Senate (62-66)
• The Presidency (67-77)
• The Judiciary (78-83)
• Concluding Observations (84-85)
(Source: Carey, George W., and James McClellan. “Reader’s Guide to the Federalist.” Preface. The Federalist. Gideon ed. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2001. Lvii-xxxiv. Print.)
Today’s Reading, Federalist 84, discusses how the proposed Constitution (our current Constitution) functions as a good government (defined by Jefferson in the Declaration) and particularly the Founders’ intended function and operation of The Constitution.
Federalist 84 is unique because it presents the doctrine of “strict-constructionism,” or abiding by the explicit powers enumerated to the National Government via the Constitution.
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Read my observations regarding Federalist 10 here.
MY ANALYSIS
Because of the immense political importance of this Federalist Paper, I strongly encourage you to read it. This is one of our shorter essays.
Publius’ basic argument is to not include a Bill of Rights in the Constitution. However, it is the less obvious argument that is important. Publius makes the case that a Bill of Rights reserves rights that should already be preserved through Constitutional limits. In other words: laws tell the people what they cannot do, and laws tell the government what it can do. This is important because “…our constitutions must be intended to limit the power of the government itself.” If the government abides by its limitations, there is no risk of it encroaching on basic rights: speech, religion, assembly, protest, firearms and so on. Only in cases of an expanding, unlimited state would a Bill of Rights be necessary, according to Publius.
He expands his argument, “I go further, and affirm, that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous.” A bill of rights being dangerous is a far cry from what is being taught in most schools today, once again: Publius views rights as inalienable, the government does not give men the freedom of speech, it only protects and preserves it. So, a Bill of Rights “would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done, which there is no power to do?” The government, under our Constitution, has absolutely no legal authority to revoke liberties, from life to liberty to firearms to speech to so many others.
Moreover, Publius argues that conferring large powers upon the national government is “improper” since “the seat of that government must of necessity be too remote from many of the states to admit of a proper knowledge on the part of the constituent.” All of those federal powers today, from administrative agencies to ethanol subsidies, are “improper” because, in modern terms, the national government was structured to not understand the daily lives of the people. The national government was explicitly built to not be omnipotent because it is expressly not omniscient, and should not be treated as such, which is so often the tendency in modern America.
Publius’ argument is that listing protected rights in a Constitution necessarily implies that the Government does maintain the power to suspend other rights not listed. If the government does assume this power, the legal limits of power, asserted by the Constitution, are effectively irrelevant. So, the best way to ensure limited governance and freedom is to list enumerated powers through a Constitution and nothing more.
So, is the Bill of Rights partially responsible for the massive expansions of government power since the founding?
Read George Washington’s First Inaugural Address for tomorrow.
[...] #3 Federalist 84 [...]