The Easy Federalist

The Federalist 47:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

After looking at the general shape of the government that is being suggested and the amount of power it will have, I am going to look into the details of the government and how the power will be divided up between the different parts.

Opponents of the Constitution argued that it went against the political rule that the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government should be separate. They said that in the Constitution, these sections were blended and mixed together so that the form of government was not symmetrical and some parts were exposed to the risk of being overpowered by other sections.

Politics has an important truth. It says that it’s not good if all the power – legislative, executive, and judicial – is in the same hands. This could be seen as tyranny. But the federal constitution is not guilty of this. To understand this better, we need to look at why it is important for the three main parts of power – legislative, executive, and judicial – to be separate and apart.

The famous Montesquieu is always the expert people turn to when talking about this topic. He may not have come up with the important rule for politics, but he did do a great job of bringing it to everyone’s attention. Let’s figure out what he meant.

Montesquieu saw the British Constitution as a mirror for political liberty, like how epic poetry writers saw Homer as a role model. He shared his views of the constitution in the form of basic facts. To make sure we understand his ideas, let’s look at the original source of the maxim.

At first glance, the British constitution shows that the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments are not entirely separate. The executive magistrate is part of the legislative authority and is the only one that can create treaties with foreign rulers. These treaties have a certain level of power, like a legislative act. All the members of the judiciary department are chosen by the executive magistrate and can be removed by the address of two houses of parliament. The legislative department also provides a great constitutional council to the executive chief. The legislative department has the only power of impeachment and has the supreme appellate jurisdiction. The judges are connected to the legislative department and sometimes attend and take part in its discussions, but they don’t get a say in the vote.

From these facts, it can be seen that Montesquieu did not mean that the legislative, executive and judicial powers should not be connected. Instead, he meant that it was important for the power of one department to not be held by the same people who have the power of another. This would happen if the king, who has the executive power, also had the complete legislative power, or if the legislative body had the supreme judiciary or executive authority. However, this is not the case in the constitution that Montesquieu examined. The executive power is held by one person, but they can’t make a law or administer justice. The judges can’t exercise executive power, but they are connected to the executive branch. The legislature can’t do any judiciary acts, but two of its branches can remove judges and one branch has the judicial power. The legislature also can’t do any executive prerogative, but one branch is the supreme executive magistracy and another can try and convict subordinate officers of the executive branch.

Montesquieu had a famous maxim that said there can be no liberty when the legislative and executive powers are together in one person or body. He gave reasons why this was true. He said that if the same monarch or senate could make laws and then enforce them in a tyrannical way, then people would be in danger of losing their lives and liberties. He also said that if the job of judging was linked to the legislative, then the life and liberty of the person might be in danger from a judge who acts as an oppressor. These reasons were enough to prove what he meant.

If we look at the constitutions of the different states, we can see that even though they talk about the legislative, executive, and judicial powers being kept separate, there is not one example of them being kept completely apart. New Hampshire, the last state to make its constitution, knew it was impossible and not a good idea to keep the powers totally separate. They said that the powers should be independent from each other as much as possible in a free government. They also said that the power should be connected in a way that holds the whole constitution together. The constitution of New Hampshire has a mix of the powers in some ways. The Senate, a part of the legislative power, is also used as a court to try impeachment cases. The President, who is the head of the executive power, is the leader of the Senate and has the same voting power and a casting vote if there is a tie. The executive head is chosen every year by the legislative department and their council is chosen from the same department. Some state officers are also appointed by the legislature and the members of the judicial department are chosen by the executive department.

The Massachusetts Constitution states that the legislative department should never have the executive or judicial powers, the executive should never have the legislative or judicial powers, and the judicial should never have the legislative or executive powers. This matches with what Montesquieu said. The plan of the convention does not break this. However, part of the executive, the senate, is part of the legislature and can impeach people in the executive and judicial departments. The executive also appoints and removes the members of the judiciary. Lastly, the legislative department appoints a lot of officers in the government. This last point breaks the rule set by the constitution.

I do not look at the constitutions of Rhode Island and Connecticut because they were made before the American Revolution started. I do not take these into consideration because the idea that I am examining had not become an issue of politics yet.

The Constitution of New York does not have a specific statement about this. However, it is clear that it was designed to avoid mixing up the different parts of the government. The executive branch has some control over the legislative branch and the judicial branch has control too. They even work together when appointing officers. The court that looks into impeachment cases has members of both the legislature and the judiciary.

In New Jersey, the constitution has mixed the different roles of government more than any of the others. The governor, who is the head of the executive branch, is appointed by the legislature. They also give them the roles of chancellor and ordinary (which is a legal term for a surrogate of the state). The governor is also a member of the Supreme Court of Appeals and has a casting vote of one legislative branch. The same legislative branch also acts as the executive council for the governor and together they make up the Court of Appeals. The members of the judicial department are appointed by the legislative department and can be removed by one branch of it if the other branch impeaches them.

According to Pennsylvania’s constitution, the president, who is the leader of the executive branch, is elected each year by a vote that gives the legislative branch more power. The president, together with the executive council, picks members of the judicial branch and creates a court to judge all officers, including those from the executive and judicial branches. The judges of the Supreme Court and justices of the peace can be removed by the legislature, and the executive branch has the power to forgive in certain cases. The members of the executive council are automatically justices of the peace in the whole state.

In Delaware, the chief executive is elected each year by the legislative department. The speakers of the two legislative branches are vice-presidents in the executive department. The executive chief and six other people chosen by the two branches of the legislative make up the supreme court of appeals. In the states, it looks like the members of the legislature can also be justices of the peace. In this state, the members of one branch of the legislature are also justices of the peace and the members of the executive council. The main officers of the executive department are appointed by the legislative and one branch of the legislative forms a court of impeachments. All officers can be removed by the legislature.

Maryland has fully accepted the idea that the legislative, executive, and judicial parts of the government should always be separate. Despite this, their constitution still allows the executive to be chosen by the legislature, and members of the judiciary to be chosen by the executive.

In Virginia, the Constitution states that the government should be divided into three separate parts – legislative, executive, and judicial. However, one exception is made for county court justices, who can be members of either house of Assembly. Further, the legislature is allowed to appoint the chief magistrate and executive council, and can remove two members of the council every three years. All major executive and judicial officers are appointed by the legislature, and the power to pardon is also given to the legislature.

The North Carolina Constitution states that the three branches of government (legislative, executive, and judicial) must remain separate. This means that the legislative branch is responsible for appointing the executive chief and all of the important officers in the executive and judicial branches.

In South Carolina, the constitution allows the legislature to choose the executive branch of the government. The legislature also chooses the judges, including the justices of the peace and sheriffs. They also pick the officers of the executive branch, all the way down to the captains of the state’s army and navy.

The constitution of Georgia states that the legislative, executive and judiciary departments must be separate and not overlap with each other. The legislature gets to choose people to fill the executive department, and they also have the final say in deciding pardons. Even justices of the peace are appointed by the legislature.

I want to make it clear that I’m not defending the way that state governments are set up. It’s obvious that in some cases, the rules about the different parts of government are not followed properly and haven’t been. But I’m trying to show that the criticism of the new Constitution for breaking a rule of free government isn’t right. I’m going to talk more about this in my next paper.

The Federalist 48:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The last paper showed that the political saying being studied does not mean that the legislative, executive, and judicial parts of government should be totally separate. In this next part, I am going to show that unless these sections are connected and blended together in a way that gives each one the power to control the other, the level of separation needed for a free government can never be kept.

It is clear that all agree that none of the three branches of government should have control over the other branches when it comes to using their powers. It is also known that all power has a tendency to take over. So, it is important to figure out how to make sure each of the three branches doesn’t try to take power away from the other two. This is a hard question to answer.

Can we mark the boundaries of the departments in the government’s constitution precisely enough to trust that they will act as barriers against power? This is the security that those who drafted most of the American constitutions relied on. However, experience shows us that this provision has been overestimated and that a more effective defense is necessary for the weaker members of the government against the more powerful. The legislative department is constantly growing and taking in all power.

The founding fathers of our nation deserved a lot of credit for how smart they were. Even so, it’s hard to point out where they went wrong. We must be honest and say that they never seemed to worry about the danger of having too much power in the hands of an inherited leader and legislature. They never seemed to remember that by gathering all power in the same place, it could lead to the same kind of tyranny as when a leader takes too much power.

In a government where a hereditary monarch has a lot of power, it is important to watch the executive department closely. In a democracy, where people have the power to make laws, the executive magistrates could use their power to be tyrannical. In a representative republic, the executive magistrates are limited in their power and the legislative power is held by an assembly of people. It is important for the people to be careful and protect themselves against the ambitious ambitions of the executive department.

The legislative branch of government is the most powerful. It has wide powers, so it can hide or make changes that affect the other branches. It is hard to tell when it has gone too far. The executive branch has less power and is easier to control. The judicial branch is even more limited and it is easy to tell when it is overstepping its bounds. The legislative branch also controls the money, so the other branches are dependent on them for rewards. This makes it easier for the legislative branch to take over.

I have used our own experiences to show the truth of what I am saying. If I had to provide evidence, there would be plenty to be found in the records and archives of every state. I will use two examples from two reliable sources to prove my point.

Virginia is an example of a state that has said in its constitution that the three main parts of government should not be mixed. Thomas Jefferson, who was the leader of the state, believed this. To understand his opinion better, we should look at what he wrote in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” (p. 195). He said that if all the powers of government are given to the same people, it’s the same as a dictatorship. Even if the people are chosen by us, it’s still not the kind of government we wanted. The plan was to divide the powers of government between different groups, so that no one group could do more than it was allowed to do. Unfortunately, the legislature has tried to take on both executive and judicial powers. This means they can pass laws that become the law of the land.

In Pennsylvania, there was a Council of Censors who met in 1783 and 1784. Their duty was to make sure the government was following the Constitution. They had to check if the legislative and executive branches were doing their job for the people or if they were taking on too much power. The Council found that the legislature had violated the Constitution in many ways.

A lot of laws were made that didn’t need to follow the rule that said any bills that were for the public had to be printed beforehand for people to think about. This rule is one of the main ways that the Constituion stops the legislature from doing things that aren’t allowed.

The court proceedings had gone against the constitution; with powers being taken that the document did not give permission for.

Executive powers had been usurped.

The Constitution says that judges must get a certain salary, but it has been changed from time to time. Also, legal matters have sometimes been decided by the legislature instead of by the judges.

If you want to learn more about the details of each of these topics, you can read the printed records of the council. Some of the issues can be linked to the war, but most of them are caused by the government not being set up correctly.

It seems that the executive department was not always acting within the Constitution. But there are three important points to remember. First, many of the actions were due to war needs or recommended by Congress or the commander in chief. Second, the other actions followed the opinions of the legislative department. Third, the executive department of Pennsylvania is much bigger than the other states. This means it can act more like a legislative assembly than an executive council. Without the responsibility of an individual for the body’s actions, and with the confidence that comes from shared influence, it is more likely to take unauthorized measures than if only one or a few hands were in charge.

The observations I have made lead me to the conclusion that having the Constitution written down on paper is not enough to protect against situations where all the power of the government is held by one person or group.

The Federalist 49:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

The author of “Notes on the State of Virginia” included a plan for a constitution in his work. This plan was to be presented to a convention in 1783. The plan shows the author’s original and accurate thinking, as well as his attachment to a republic form of government. He also proposed one idea that may be unique, which is important in relation to the topic.

He is suggesting that if two out of the three branches of government agree, with two thirds of their members, that a convention is needed to change or fix the Constitution, then a convention should be held.

As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived; it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only when- ever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new model the powers of government; but also whenever any one of the departments may commit en- croachments on the chartered authorities of the others. The several depart- ments being perfectly co-ordinate by the terms of their common commis- sion, neither of them, it is evident, can pretend to an exclusive or superior right of settling the boundaries between their respective powers: and how are the encroachments of the stronger to be prevented, or the wrongs of the weaker to be redressed, without an appeal to the people themselves, who, as the grantors of the commission, can alone declare its true meaning, and en- force its observance?

This reasoning is convincing and it is clear that there should be a way for the people to decide during special occasions. However, there are strong objections to the idea of having the people make decisions about the government’s departments in all cases.

At first, this provision doesn’t protect if two departments work together against a third. If the legislative authority, which has many ways to influence the other departments, can get one or two departments on their side, the other department won’t be able to use this solution. I’m not focusing on this problem too much, though, because this objection is more about the changes to the principle than the principle itself.

In the next place, it might be seen as a problem with the principle that, if people are asked for their opinion too often, the government won’t be seen as important and respected. People’s opinions are only as strong as the amount of people with the same opinion. If some people have been thinking the same thing for a long time, then it is even stronger. In a nation of wise people, this wouldn’t be a problem. But it is unlikely that this will happen, so it is important for the most sensible government to have people’s support.

The danger of upsetting public peace by stirring up strong emotions in people is a more serious issue than often taking constitutional questions to the people for a decision. Even though the people of America have done well in revising their forms of government, it’s not a good idea to do this too often. This is because all of the current constitutions were made in a time of danger that kept people from feeling negative emotion towards the changes or the fixes to old problems. People were also excited to have new forms and wanted to get rid of the old government. These types of feelings won’t always be around, so we can’t count on them to keep us safe from the danger that we worry about.

The biggest issue with this is that the decision from the appeals would not help keep a balance between the branches of government. The executive and judicial branches are made up of a few people and are not as close to the people as the legislative branch. The legislative branch has more members and is more connected with the people. It’s more likely that the legislative branch would win the appeals due to their greater influence over the people.

The legislative party would have an advantage when trying to gain the favor of people. They would likely be the ones in charge of the convention. If not all, a lot of them would be part of the convention, especially the important figures. Basically, most of the people in the convention would be people who had already been part of the department in question, or were in it, or expected to be. This means they would be biased when deciding the issue.

It’s possible that appeals could be made in less difficult situations. The legislature may do something so extreme that it can’t be justified. On the other hand, if the executive has a lot of public support, and a lot of people in the legislature feel the same way, the decision may not be as biased. But it will still be based on who is popular and who is not, rather than looking at the issue objectively. Therefore, the public’s emotions will control the decision, not their reason. But it’s important that reason should be the one in control of the government, not emotions. The government needs to be the one to regulate people’s feelings.

In our last paper, we realized that words written in the constitution are not enough to keep the different sections within their legal boundaries. It was obvious that calling on the people now and then would not be a good idea or even helpful. We don’t need to look at how successful the plan mentioned previously would be. Some of the ideas are based on good politics and they are all crafted with skill and accuracy.

The Federalist 50:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

It can be argued that having regular appeals to the people, rather than occasional ones, is a better way of preventing and dealing with violations of the constitution. These regular appeals can avoid the problems that come with the occasional ones.

It is important to consider if the ideas proposed will help the constitution stay in its boundaries. It does not look good for appeals to the people to happen every so often or occasionally. If the intervals are too short, the ideas will be too recent and not looked at properly. If the intervals are too far apart, the recent ideas will not be checked and power might be used wrong. It is not likely that members of the assembly will stop what they are doing if they know they will be judged in the future. Even if they do, the wrongs might already have been done and it will be hard to fix them.

Revising the constitution to fix recent violations and for other reasons was done in one state. The council of censors in Pennsylvania in 1783 and 1784 was supposed to see if the constitution was broken and if the legislative and executive parts of the government took too much power. This experiment in politics is important and deserves special consideration. It might not be the most conclusive, but the facts that come with it are enough to prove the point I’m making.

At first, it seems like some of the people in the council had been important in the political parties that were in the state before.

Secondly, it appears that some of the same people who were active and important members of the council had also been active and influential members of the government and made decisions about the same things that were being tested by the constitution. Two of these people had been vice-presidents of the state and some others had been part of the executive council in the past seven years. One of them had been speaker and a lot of the others had been important members of the legislative assembly during the same time.

Thirdly, it is clear from their proceedings that their deliberations were strongly influenced by their circumstances. The council was divided into two very different and opposing sides. This is something that the members of the council themselves acknowledge and regret. Even in cases which were not particularly significant or unrelated to each other, the same groups of people would always be on opposite sides. Any unbiased observer can understand, without making any judgments on either group, that emotions, not logic, were the driving force behind their decisions. When people are allowed to think and reason freely about different topics, it is natural for them to disagree on some points. But if they are driven by the same emotion, they will likely come to the same conclusion.

Fourth, it is questionable whether the decisions of this group don’t misinterpret the limits set for the legislative and executive departments, instead of keeping them within their constitutional boundaries.

Fifth, I don’t understand how the council’s decisions on constitutional matters, whether they were right or wrong, had any impact on the practice based on legislative interpretations. It even looks like, if I’m not mistaken, in one case the legislature at the same time denied the council’s interpretations and actually won the disagreement.

This group of censors shows that the disease exists, but also that the cure does not work.

This conclusion cannot be proven wrong by saying that the state where the experiment was done was very angry and divided because of political parties. Is it fair to think that in the future this state will not have any political parties? Is it right to think that any other state, at the same time or any other time, will not have any political parties? We don’t want this to be true because if there weren’t any political parties, it would either mean people were scared of the government or freedom was gone.

If people elected for the task of reviewing the government’s prior operations excluded those who had been involved in the government during the given period, the problems wouldn’t be solved. The job would likely be given to people with lesser abilities and not as qualified in other ways. Even if they weren’t directly responsible for the measures that needed to be examined, they would probably still have been involved with the parties that had something to do with the measures and were elected with their support.

The Federalist 51:

Written by James Madison

This paper has not yet been reviewed by a human. The following is a machine simplification by OpenAI.

What should we do to keep the different parts of the government in their proper places as written in the Constitution? The only answer is that we should arrange the government in a way that its different parts work together, keeping each other in check. We can’t explain it fully here, but let’s look at some general ideas to help us better understand the government made by the convention.

To make sure that each branch of government has its own power and can protect liberty, each branch should be formed in a way that its members don’t choose each other. Ideally, all the people for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches should come from the same place and have no connection to each other. This would be hard to do and cost money. We have to accept that this plan isn’t perfect. For the judicial branch, it’s important to pick people with special skills. The people in this branch keep their jobs for a long time, so they don’t depend on the people who picked them.

It is clear that the people in each part of the government should be as independent as possible from the other parts. If the leader of the government or the judges weren’t independent from the legislature when it comes to their pay, they would not be independent in any other way.

Security against a concentration of power in one department of government can be achieved by giving those in charge of each department the means to resist encroachment from the others. A defense must be created that is equal to the threat of attack. Ambition must be used to oppose ambition and a person’s personal interests must be connected to their constitutional rights. It may seem to be a negative reflection on human nature that these safeguards are needed, but government itself is a reflection on human nature. If people were perfect, we wouldn’t need a government. If angels were governing us, we wouldn’t need any controls on the government. When creating a government to be run by people, the main challenge is to make it so the government can control the people and also control itself. The people have the first power over the government but experience has shown us that other precautions are also necessary.

This idea of having different interests that can counter each other to make up for the lack of good intentions can be seen in all aspects of life, from private to public. We can observe this especially in the smaller areas of power where the goal is to divide roles and arrange them so that each one can serve as a check for the other. This way, the personal interests of each person can act as a guard for public rights. It is also necessary to use this strategy when distributing the highest authority in a state.

It is not possible to give each department the same power of self-defense. In a republican government, the legislative authority is usually more powerful. To fix this problem, the legislature should be divided into different branches. This way, election and action can be different, and the branches will not be connected to each other. To protect against danger, more precautions may be needed. The legislative authority should be divided, and the executive should be fortified. An absolute negative on the legislature may not be safe or sufficient. To fix this, a connection should be made between the weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, so that the latter will help the former, but not be too far from its own rights.

If the ideas I have discussed are correct, then I think they can be used to judge the different state constitutions and the United States Constitution. If the US Constitution does not completely agree with them, then the state constitutions will be even less likely to follow them.

In addition, there are two aspects of the federal system of America that make it very interesting.

First, when people give up their power to have a single republic, all of that power goes to one government. To stop that government from taking too much power, the government is divided into different departments. In the United States there are two different governments and each of these governments is divided into different departments. This gives people double protection for their rights. The two governments can keep an eye on each other and each government can control itself.

Second, it is very important in a republic to protect citizens from the tyranny of rulers, but also to protect one group of citizens from the injustice of another. People in different classes of society have different interests. If the majority of citizens agrees on something, the rights of the minority will be at risk. There are two ways to prevent this from happening: the first is creating a will which is independent from the majority and the second is to have so many different groups of citizens that it is very unlikely that the majority will be able to form an unfair coalition. The first method is used in governments with hereditary or self-appointed authority, but it is not very secure. The second method is what is used in the United States. With all authority being dependent on the society, the society is divided into many different groups and interests, which makes it hard for the majority to take away the rights of the minority. In a free government, the same protection should be given to religious rights as is given to civil rights. This protection is based on the number of interests and groups in the society, which in turn is based on the size of the country and population. This should be a good reason for people to support a federal system. The goal of government is justice and to make sure liberty is not lost in pursuit of it. In a society where the majority can easily oppress the minority, it is almost like living in a state of nature. The stronger faction will be more likely to support a government which protects everyone, not just the majority. The security for civil rights in a large republic, with a judicious mixture of federal principles, will be much greater than in a small republic.

---