Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 8

Source 1: The Federalist Papers - series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to

ratify (approve/agree to/give formal consent) the new United States Constitution.

1. The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection, No.9 - is an essay
by Alexander Hamilton. – argument against anti-federalist government based on theories
on montesquie. Believes that states shouldn’t be abolished or made smaller.
 Hamilton's response to the common Anti-Federalist argument based on the
theories of Montesquieu, who wrote famously in his The Spirit of the Laws that
"it is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long
subsist."
 Key terms were defined. confederate republic as a “convention by which several
smaller states agree to become members of a larger one.”
 Hamilton responds to the Antifederalist charge of “consolidation,” a frequently-
used disparagement at the time that invoked images of a distant, tyrannical, and
out-of-touch centralized government and of destruction of state-level authority.
 The proposed constitution, Hamilton responds, does not abolish the states, but,
rather, makes them a constituent part of the national sovereignty and leaves with
them certain exclusive and very important aspects of sovereign power.
 Hamilton responded that if Montesquieu were taken literally, then since he was
thinking of dimensions far smaller even than those of the states, the Americans
would have to split themselves into "an infinity of little, jealous, clashing
tumultuous commonwealths."
 Hamilton contends that the confederated federal system described in the proposed
Constitution would not suffer as Montesquieu predicted because of its de-
centralized design. He further argues that Montesquieu himself proposed a
confederation of republics as the solution.
 Establish the precedent so that in the case of uprising and rebellion, the military
has more force to suppress the uprisings.
 Hamilton's idea of federalism stems from his belief that there should be ways of
solving all problems that the government may have. This is seen through the
checks and balances and the distribution of power that Hamilton suggests should
be present in the U.S.

2. Federalist No. 10 is an essay written by James Madison as the tenth of The Federalist
Papers and continues a theme begun in Federalist No. 9 – the destructive nature of
factions and methods to eliminate the negative effects of faction.
 Hamilton there addressed the destructive role of a faction in breaking apart the
republic. The question Madison answers, then, is how to eliminate the negative
effects of faction.
 He identifies the most serious source of faction to be the diversity of opinion in
political life which leads to dispute over fundamental issues such as what regime
or religion should be preferred.
 Madison's fears about factions was the unequal distribution of property in society.
He felt that people would form different factions that pursued different interests.
argued that the unequal distribution of property led to the creation of different
classes that formed different factions and pursued different class interests.
 Recognizing that the country's wealthiest property owners formed a minority and
that the country's unpropertied classes formed a majority. feared that a majority
faction of the unpropertied classes might emerge to redistribute wealth and
property in a way that benefited the majority of the population at the expense of
the country's richest and wealthiest people.
 Madison first assessed that there are two ways to limit the damage caused by
faction: either remove the causes of faction or control its effects.
 Two methods to removing the causes of faction: first, destroying liberty, which
would work because is impossible to perform because liberty is essential to
political life and Americans fought for it during the American Revolution.
Creating a society homogeneous in opinions and interests, is impracticable. The
diversity of the people's ability is what makes them succeed more or less.
 concludes that the damage caused by faction can be limited only by controlling its
effects.
 small democracy cannot avoid the dangers of majority faction because small size
means that undesirable passions can very easily spread to a majority of the people
 how this is not possible in a pure democracy but possible in a republic
 argument in favor of a large republic against a small republic
 In a large republic, where the number of voters and candidates is greater, the
probability to elect competent representatives is broader.
 While in a large republic the variety of interests will be greater so to make it
harder to find a majority. Even if there is a majority, it would be harder for them
to work together because of the large number of people and the fact they are
spread out in a wider territory.
 Though Madison argued for a large and diverse republic, the writers of the
Federalist Papers recognized the need for a balance. They wanted a republic
diverse enough to prevent faction but with enough commonality to maintain
cohesion among the states.

3. "The Particular Structure of the New Government and the Distribution of Power
Among Its Different Parts". Federalist No. 47 is written by James Madison. –
analyzed the importance of separation of power for the preservation of liberty through
quoting works of Montesquieu.
 This paper examines the separation of powers among the executive, legislative,
and judicial branches of government under the proposed United States
Constitution due to the confusion of the concept at the citizen level.
 Madison agrees with those who place great importance on the separation of
powers, especially on the point that an unequal division of power could result in
the loss of liberty.Too much power in one branch of government "is the very
definition of tyranny." Madison considers their separation essential to the
preservation of liberty.
 Madison explains his use of separation of powers utilizing a prodigious amount of
support from the philosopher Montesquieu.
 Montesquieu, the French political writer, formulated this principle of government.
He took the British constitution as his model, which he called "the mirror of
political liberty."
 Madison continues by showing that the branches of the British government are
not completely separate and distinct. Madison shows how each branch is, in some
way, interconnected with one another.
 Idea that each branch would stand alone to solely deal with its own
responsibilities is one that Madison believes is impractical and non-beneficial.
 Analyzes the importance, and controversy over the separation of powers, and
checks in balances in the new constitution. By identifying the issue, analyzing
Montesquieu's philosophy of law, and connecting it to that of the states'
governments, Madison is able to fabricate a powerful, and effective essay that
persuades the citizens of the United States to look at the proposed constitution
more favorably.

4. Federalist No. 51, titled: "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the
Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments", is an essay
by James Madison - addresses means by which appropriate checks and balances can be
created in government and also advocates a separation of powers within the national
government.

 Madison's key point is that the members of each department should have as little
dependence as possible on the members of the other departments. Each branch
should have as little influence as possible in the appointment of members of other
branches, and should also retain financial independence from one another to
prevent corruption
 the legislative branch is the strongest, and therefore must be divided into different
branches and He stresses the need for the checks and balances – each state
government is divided into branches, each with separate and independent powers.
Because of the division of power, a "double security arises to the rights of the
people. The governments will control each other, at the same time that each will
be controlled by itself
 Madison discusses at great length the issue of political factions and their ability to
allow the oppression of the minority opinion by the majority. He recognizes the
only way to counteract the effects of factions is to either have a "community will"
or to have a greater diversity of interest groups so that no singular faction can
become the majority. He recognizes that this first option can also lead to
injustices, so the best solution is for society to have a multitude of different
groups and classes to prevent tyranny.

Source 2: newspaper article - What's the Answer to Political Polarization in the U.S.?
Discusses factors that are causing and contributing to the political polarization in U.S and the
possible policies and solutions that can solve this problem.

 While it is true that political polarization isn’t the worst right now and has been worst in
the past, it’s a low standard for a first world country with abundance of resources
 Cause : Is congress the cause of polarization – it’s the founders of the party who are to be
blamed for the way and there are flays in the constitutions design.
 Solution 1 – non-partisan redistricting commissions – a way to keep the politicians from
picking their voters. The efficiency of the policy is yet to be determined.
 Cause: the parties have too much influence over elections.
 Solution 2: nonpartisan elections. Nebraska is an example of a successful implementation
of this policy. This can be an effective solution but hasn’t gained support in congress.
 Solution 3: automatic voter registration like Australia. Would more engagement reduce
polarization? Republicans however argue that voters shouldn’t be forced to vote, and this
could me a way for democrats to increase their voting amongst minority and youth.
 Cause: is money the root cause of all political problems? It definitely is. Elections for
governor, senator or for the house are heavily influenced by billionaires and their money.
 Conclusion: no simple solution
 With the election of Donald trump, polarization is rampant and there is a strong divide
and even a sort of hatred between republicans and democrats

Source 3: how is congress coping with the reduction in congressional committee staff.

 Why have the staff reduced: due to polarization, staff at home and personal officed have
been increased to handle constituent requests, power has shifted from committees to party
leaders and committees role reduced, limited federal discretionary spending makes
committees lose.
 Executive agencies loan congress civil servants
 Detailees are civil servants with expertise in certain fields. Agencies may feel political
pressure to supply their staff.
 Congress benefits because the executives bring deep knowledge and expertise that is not
traditional. Execs can help oversee federal agencies and get in touch with branch staffers
for input on legislation or info. Congress increases its institutional capacity.
 Agencies get direct insight into congressional decision-making. Detailees can represent
the agencies interests and persepctives.
 Detailes can however influence polticial decision making towards the executive side and
the staff can be critical in legislation, unearthing info and investigating their own
agencies.

FB – privacy – BIP
January 29, 2019

What is public policy?


 The principles that our society is based on
 The way we think about interacting in society
 Laws, customs, institutions

What can you do with public policy - Lobbying, government, journalists, private sector – public
policy teams (privacy, internally change the policy, etc)

Public policy sprang out of Vietnam war. John F. Kennedy was the first president to have staff.
Public policy took off in 60’s – foreign policy of the Johnson administration was a disaster, so
they focused domestically.

Speaker is the agenda setter, controls committee assignments

Resources: think tank, the weeds/impact – more abt public policy


Research about: executive policies, federal government created agencies, structuring and power
of house and senate, speaker of the house, spectrum of political standing – left to central to right,
Nancy Pelosi, filibuster, mitch mcconnell and chuck schumer – minority, how is a bill passed,
getting co-sponsors on bills,

Forms of legislation – a bill

Comment in the threads

Constitution is divided into three branches:


1. Legislative – makes laws – congress – house of representatives and senate
2. Executive – implements laws – president – vice president, cabinet
3. Judicial – interprets laws – supreme court and other federal courts

Democratic – liberal – right of center


Republican – conservative – a little to the right of democratic

February 5, 2019

The executive branch – while the legislative branch makes laws, the executive branch can
determine how to interpret the law – Obama and trump administration have different methods of
understanding the same law set by legislative branch.

President’s cabinet is made up of heads of all agencies as an advisory board – department of


treasury, defense, justice, agriculture, commerce, homeland security, education, energy,
transportation.
The president – at least trump administration – doesn’t usually value the opinions of the agencies
and usually have their own teams whose opinion they value

The chief of staff is a gatekeeper – head of EOP and WHO. It’s a management and protection
position. Chief of staff organize info, structure the staff system and prepare issues so president
can decide, control the flow into and out of the oval office, seeks advice and opinions from all
across the white house.

White house press secretary – answer question from press and communicate president’s agenda,

Signing statements – statement attached to a bill, while signing it into law.


Purpose of signing statements:
1. Rhetorical – to point out negative or positive aspects of the bill and to suggest how
they align with the administration’s views
2. Political – to define or clarify what the president views as ambiguous aspects of the
bill
3. Constitutional – announce

Executives orders: a directive that manages operations of the federal government. They have the
force of law, but only in the executive branch. They have significant influence over the internal
affairs of government. They are only issues by the president and can be rescinded or amended by
congress or another executive.

Judicial branch is the third branch of the government. It has a system of courts that interprets the
law and the organization that applies the law.

February 12, 2019

The judicial branch

What does interpreting the law look like?


 Textualism – thinking about what the text says literally
 Originalism – thinking about the original intent of the founders
 From a sociological perspective – contextualizing what was written in the constitution to
today’s world

Federal vs State Courts


 There are two parallel systems – federal courts and state courts
 Federal courts have jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases that fall under purview
(touch federal law)
 State courts have jurisdiction over civil and criminal cases that fall under state purview
 Sometimes, jurisdiction overlaps and one can be persecuted under both the federal and
state law.
Federal Courts
 Constitution grants congress the power to create and abolish federal courts, though
they cannot abolish the supreme court
 Congress also decided the number of judges in the federal judiciary
Court jurisdiction
 Courts must have a reason to hear a case. The same way that an individual or business
must have standing to bring forth a case, a court must have jurisdiction to hear it.
 There are several types of jurisdiction:
 Subject matter – does the court have the authority over the particular type of
case
 Personal jurisdiction – does the court have authority over an individual or
business?

Forum shopping
 There is a lot of room to interpret jurisdiction, you often see a lot of forum shopping –
particularly for people or businesses with a lot of money.
 It’s the idea that you want your case heard in a court that’s going to be favorable to you

The supreme court


 There are 9 justices, though it has fluctuated
 Constitution does not define the size of the supreme court
 The president has the sole responsibility of nominating justices to the supreme court,
though he must get approval from the senate
 It has jurisdiction over all cases
 Most jurisdiction is appellate – comes from lower courts
 All needed for a win is simple majority
 If a decision is not unanimous, then the court issues both majority and minority opinions
 Sometimes justices write concurring opinions – meaning they agree with the choice
being made but disagree with the reasons for making the choice.
 Oral arguments first, justices meet to have a discussion and take a preliminary vote. The
chief justice, if in the majority, assigns the writing of the opinion. If he’s in the minority,
most senior justice in the majority assigns the writing.
 Supreme court decision can be overturned by a constitutional amendment
 Legislative branch cannot override a supreme court decision
 Supreme court can overturn a previous supreme court decision if it’s based on the
constitution.

Exercise: life tenure of supreme court justices

Marbury vs Madison in 1803


McCulloch vs Maryland in 1819 – established that the federal government has implied powers
Dred Scott vs Sandford in 1857 – established that African Americans were not citizens
Korematsu vs US
Brown vs Board of Education in 1954 – established that separating students – typically black and
white students – in school was unconstitutional
Gideon vs Wainwright in 1963 – established that criminal defendants have a right to an attorney,
whether they can afford one or not
Miranda vs Arizona in 1966 – established that individuals must be advised of their rights before
being questioned by the police
Loving vs Virginia in 1976 – established that state laws prohibiting interracial marriage were
unconstitutional
Roe vs Wade in 1972 – established that women have a right to abortion during the first two
trimesters
US vs Nixon in 1974 – established that president can’t use executive privilege to shield court
from information during a criminal trial
Bush vs Gore in 2000 – decided that a recount of 2000 election was not feasible in a reasonable
peiod of time
Obergefell vs Hodges in 2015 – established that same sex marriage was legal in all 50 states

Discussion of carpenter vs the US case