Category: James Madison

James Madison once said, “Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power.” This quote stood out to me because over the past month we have been talking and learning about the executive branch and how the Framers were scared that the president/ congress could have too much power causing a monarchy. James Madison was born on March 16, 1751, at Port Conway, Virginia. Madison entered politics as a young delegate to the Virginia convention in 1776, which drafted the state constitution and declaration of rights. In 1780 he became a delegate to the Continental Congress. He played a major role in creating the public domain out of the Western lands and worked to defeat Spain’s efforts to close the Mississippi River to America. After his return to his home in Virginia, he was elected to the state House of Delegates. On the convention floor, Madison was a big part of debates. His Virginia Plan, introduced to the delegates, was a plan of government that with many alterations eventually became the Constitution. Madison did a number of things like; Collaborating with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay on the Federalist Papers; leading the Democratic-Republican Party; serving as Secretary of State; becoming the fourth president of the United States; and serving as commander-inchief in the War of 1812. As a respected leader, Madison was known for his brilliant drive in politics, careful preparation and hard work. Madison was one of the principal founders of the American republican form of government. He helped plan and approve the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as a founding father.

In Madison’s earlier years he entered the College of New Jersey (Princeton) in 1769. He graduated two years later and remained for an additional year’s study. After completing graduate studies, Madison returned home and got involved in local politics. He served as a member of the Orange County Committee of Public Safety. In 1776, he was elected to the Virginia Legislature. Madison soon began forming a relationship with Thomas Jefferson, a young innovative mind while serving in the state legislature. During Madison’s early years he campaigned for improvement in the Articles of Confederation. He became progressively worried about the disunity of the states and the weakness of the central government after the end of the Revolutionary War in 1783. In 1808 James Madison was elected for president. On June 1, 1812, Madison drove Congress to declare war against Great Britain, the first war message by an American president. After discussions with British minister Erskine, Madison issued an announcement known as the Erskine Agreement, revoking the embargo on Britain. Erskine leads Madison to believe that Britain will revoke its Orders in Council. On March 25, however, the American envoy in Britain learns that British foreign secretary has canceled the Erskine Agreement. The news does not reach Madison till six weeks later. On August 9, Madison set aside his announcement on establishing trade with Britain and resumed a policy of non-intercourse.

Madison vetoes two bills of Congress, one granting land in the Mississippi Territory to a Baptist congregation and the other incorporating an Episcopal church in Washington, D.C. Madison argues that both bills violate the non-establishment clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the government from making any law “respecting an establishment of religion.” This clause not only forbids the government from establishing an official religion, but also prohibits government actions that unduly favor one religion over another. It also prohibits the government from unduly preferring religion over non-religion, or nonreligion over religion.

On November 7th 1811, after acknowledging the danger posed by Shawnee leader Tecumseh, who hopes to assemble a confederation of tribes. General William Henry Harrison, the governor of the Indian Territory, carriers out a pre-emptive strike on Tecumseh. Harrison’s militia is barely successful at the Battle of Tippecanoe, an engagement that serves as a prelude to the War of 1812. Tecumseh flees to Canada and British protection. On December 18, Madison proclaims the Battle of Tippecanoe a victory that will restore peace to the northwestern frontier. Then, in October of 1811, Harrison set out with a force of 1000 men towards Prophetstown. James Madison, feeling the pressures of war forming around him, called on Congress early for this Annual Address. On November 5th, he addressed congress about the British hostilities on the seas, and asked congress to begin making preparations for possible war, as well as announcing the march on the Shawnee tribe.’ In this disposition is included a force consisting of regulars and militia, embodied in the Indiana Territory and marched toward our northwestern frontier. This measure was made requisite by several murders and depredations committed by Indians, but more especially by the menacing preparations and aspect of a combination of them on the Wabash, under the influence and direction of a fanatic of the Shawanese tribe’.

Madison issues a proclamation authorizing occupation of West Florida, also claimed by Spain, as part of the Louisiana Purchase. Many Americans, including former President Thomas Jefferson, thought that West Florida was included as part of the Louisiana Purchase. The Louisiana Purchase itself implied that West Florida might be a part of the deal, and Jefferson pressed his claim against Spain, although France insisted West Florida had not been part of the purchase. Both France and Britain harassed American shipping, and Madison speculated that Britain might capture Florida. In use as a base to attack the United States in the event that the United States joined the war. Then, in late September, Americans in West Florida seized control of the area, proclaimed an independent republic, and offered it to the United States. Madison did not support those actions and continued to reason that West Florida already belonged to the United States as part of the Louisiana Purchase.

As stated previously, James Madison was both a realistic politician as well as a president who exercised moral leadership. For example, Madison served as a delegate in the constitutional convention and through his idea of the Virginia Plan, was one of the founding fathers of the Constitution. During the Non-Intercourse Act in 1811, Madison was greatly attacked in the press that friends mentioned to him that he should take legal action. Madison being a leader and role model said no to taking legal action and was viciously attacked. Although some may judge Madison on his political achievement, no one can say that he did not stand up for freedom of the press or religion. James Madison did not use the media to develop presidential power during his time. Madison was elected president in 1812 and did not have technology like we do today, instead the presidents would have several messages to congress, as well as newspapers to distribute information around the world. Another way in which Madison “used the media” was by traveling around while giving several speeches or messages. He also wrote several articles that were published for the public to read. When it came to foresight, Madison used it during the conflict between America, France, and Britain when he occupied Florida. He also used foresight during our second war for independence, it also provided a chance to take over Canada, make the Spanish flee from Florida, halt Indian forthcoming, and obtain independence through maritime.

James Madison was not opposed to long standing traditions, or popular ideas. He along with the presidents before and after him only served as president for a maximum amount of two terms. It wasn’t until FDR that it was thought okay to serve a longer term, it was a precedent that George Washington had set to serve only two terms. He also supported the popular ideals of not just having a federal government, but of each state/colony also having a equally strong government. James Madison was a well-respected man, he wrote most of the federalist papers, a big part of the constitution, and a lot of the bill of rights. When Jefferson became president, Madison became secretary of state and served as his chief for the next eight years as a loyal party supporter and foreign policy adviser. After retiring, Madison came back and was elected for president for an additional ten years. Everyone loved and respected James Madison, especially due to the war of 1812. Madison was also indeed a very responsible man through the Virginia Plan Madison thought in order to prevent the abuse of power, a system called checks and balances would help to structure this idea.

Along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, the three men managed to write a series of persuasive papers that were later published in the New York newspaper, known as the federalist papers. This goes to show how selfless James Madison was during this life. Madison wanted to make sure that Americans had freedom of speech, and were protected against ‘unreasonable searches and seizures’ and received ‘a speedy and public trial’ if faced with charges, among other recommendations. Madison was viewed as a trustworthy and dependable president during the 1800’s. He had several great contributions to our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Articles of Confederation. People of the time could trust their president and know that our country was in good hands. Madison was a great president who trusted upon when faced with a war or conflict. I would rate James Madison a great president in conclusion to what he has contributed to during his presidency.

In conclusion researching about a president has taught me a lot about how a presidency should look and some tasks a president may encounter. Getting James Madison was a great choice that I made because now I got the opportunity to see how being a president (https://gradesfixer.com/free-essay-examples/a-personalopinion-on-barack-obama-being-the-best-president-in-american-history/) was back in the early 1800’s. James Madison was an amazing person with a huge brain full of wonderful knowledge. Coming up with not only the Virginia Plan, but also checks and balances was a huge contribution to rebuilding the constitution. The Virginia Plan is a great way to keep our legislation more open and efficient. Having a system like checks and balances to keep our government from abusing power or forming a monarchy was a great idea that James Madison came up with. I have also learned a bunch of ways to campaign for yourself when there is a lack of social media, television, advertisements, or anything that could help get your message out to the public. Madison had to travel to various places and post several messages for everyone to read. I personally think that James Madison was a very important president and will never be forgotten. I will now leave you with some of the last words that Madison left behind. ‘The advice nearest to my heart and deepest in my convictions is that the Union of the States be cherished and perpetuated. Let the open enemy to it be regarded as a Pandora with her box opened; and the disguised one, as the Serpent creeping with his deadly wiles into Paradise.

The premise of strict construction versus loose constructionism was a prominent view of the Constitution which would ultimately split the nation into two separate political entities. The Federalists were champions of a strong national government with a loose interpretation of the Constitution, whereas the Republicans were champions of state and local governments with supposedly strict interpretations of the Constitution. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison terms as president were often characterized by these strong democratic views that would oppose the primary political views of the Federalists. However, this characterization of Jefferson and Madison’s presidencies were not entirely definite, as both presidents would exercise power that would go beyond this established profile of Jeffersonian Republicans. Federalists were also not excluded from this deviation from core ideals. The characterization of the two political parties during the presidencies of Jefferson and Madison were not entirely accurate as shown by the deviation of character by Jefferson’s actions as president, Jefferson utilizing both ideals, Madison’s administration exercising powers beyond the Constitution, and what the Federalists accomplished at the Hartford Convention.

Despite being characterized by his strict constructionist policies, Jefferson would deviate from this policy in many areas. During the later years of Jefferson’s presidency, tensions had begun to arise between the British and French in the Napoleonic Wars. The Chesapeake Leopold Affair, which was the capturing of American citizens by a British naval ship would lead to Jefferson imposing the Embargo Act of 1807 (Document C). Not only would he impose the Embargo Act, but he would soon impose the Non-Intercourse Act to punish the actions of the French and British. Jefferson’s response to the foreign problem was very uncharacteristic of him and demonstrated his following of loose constructionism, as the Constitution only allows Congress to regulate commerce. Furthermore, Jefferson states “…laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths disclosed, and manners and opinions change with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also and keep pace with the times” (Document G). Jefferson recognizes that times change, resulting in a change of ideas, and ultimately “changes in laws and Constitutions”. Therefore, because the Constitution cannot always be accurate with the times, it must change accordingly– demonstrating the premise of loose constructionism.

Jefferson accomplished a presidency of showing both loose and strict constructionist views of the Constitution. Jefferson’s views of strict constructionism is demonstrated in his letter to Gideon Granger in which he says, “our country can never be harmonious and solid while so respectable a portion of its citizens support principles which go directly to a change of the federal Constitution” (Document A). Jefferson is stating that the idea of the Federalists to be able to loosely interpret the Constitution will cause fo the country to not be harmonious and successful, displaying his strict view of the Constitution. Furthermore, his strong beliefs prevented him from giving a prayer like his predecessors. He states that, “I am aware that the practice of my predecessors may be quoted…civil powers alone have been given to the President of the U.S. and no authority to direct the religious exercises of his constituents” (Document B). Jefferson has such strong views of strict constructionism he wouldn’t even follow something previous presidents practiced because of the separation of church and state. These documents showed Jefferson’s strong dedication to strict constructionism, but Jefferson was not perfect in following through, such as when he followed through with the Louisiana Purchase. Realizing that despite the Constitution not allowing the federal government to purchase land, Jefferson still followed through, applying loose constructionism and purchasing land from the French. His willingness to do so was promoted by economical and geographical benefits, and demonstrates that Jefferson’s presidency was not limited to the Jeffersonian Republicans view of strict constructionism.

Madison being a strong advocate of Jeffersonian Republican ideals would also stray away from a strict constructionist policy when needed. Daniel Webster addresses the Madison presidency by stating “The [Madison] administration asserts the right to fill the ranks of the regular army by compulsion…Who will show me any constitutional injunction which makes it the duty of the American people to surrender everything valuable in life, and even life itself” (Document D). Webster is complaining that Madison’s administration, one that stresses the idea of strict constructionism is doing something that is completely against that policy. Nowhere in the Constitution allows for the conscription of troops for the army, and utilizing this policy only contradicts the views of a Jeffersonian Republican. Another instance in which Madison opposes and deviates from party views. John Randolph criticizes Madison of the proposed tariff from Madison’s administration, he states, “I am convinced that it would be impolitic, as well as unjust, to aggravate the burdens of the people for the purpose of favoring the manufacturer; for this government created and gave power to Congress to regulate commerce…” (Document F). Randolph, a Democratic Republican is criticizing Madison’s lack of commitment to the party and its core ideals of strict constructionism. He says, “Their principle now is old Federalism, vamped up into something bearing the superficial appearance of republicanism…” (Document F). Madison’s proposed tariff being indicated as a principle of old Federalism shows that the characterizations of the various parties were not true as Madison did not completely enforce this idea throughout his presidency.

The Federalists were not exclusively limited to only demonstrating a loose constructionist view. The Federalists congregated to form the Hartford Convention that would propose amendments and policies that would oppose the War of 1812 along with the Republicans. One of the resolutions that the Federalists established were that “No new state shall be admitted into the Union by Congress, in virtue of the power granted by the constitution, without the concurrence of two thirds of both houses” (Document E). This application is Constitutional, as Congress is the only body capable of admitting statehood. This counters the characterization that Federalists believed in broad constructionism, they were not exclusive to affirming the idea of strict constructionism. The purpose of these documents, ironically, was to protect the Federalists from the Republicans that were abusing their powers from aspects of loose constructionism. Federalists, just like the Republicans used both elements and views of the Constitution during their times of presence.

The characterizations that Federalists were broad constructionists whereas the Jeffersonian Republicans were strict constructionists were not entirely accurate. Both political parties demonstrated the usage of both types of views on the Constitution in order to solve and fix the individual issues presented to each party. To limit and solidify these parties on these individual ideals is not accurate, both parties needed to deviate from their core beliefs in order to adapt with the time, much like how modern-day Democrats supported going into the Middle East after 9/11. Situations call for different actions than the party’s or individual’s beliefs.

James Madison once said, A people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power that knowledge gives. A popular government without the means of acquiring information is a prologue to a tragedy. It is because I agree with Madison that I stand in strong affirmation of the resolution, When in conflict, academic freedom in U.S. High Schools ought to be valued above community standards. To better clarify the round I offer the following definitions (definitions). The ultimate value that will be upheld in todays debate will be that of Knowledge, knowledge is generally defined as acquaintance with fact or truth. It is the state of knowing or understanding. I have one observation dealing with my value: my opponent my argue that knowledge is undesirable because the information we require my be untrue and leads us astray. You should note that this argument is illegitimate because it does not attack knowledge; it attacks false hood, which by definition cannot be knowledge. My value will be supported through my Criterion of the Cost Benefit Analysis, where I will show you that the benefits we as a society would receive through academic freedom greatly outweigh the costs. Therefore the person that can show more benefits than cost through their value should win the round. I will now proceed to uphold my value through three main levels of analysis. The first level will consist of showing how community standards cannot be defined in a society such as ours. Second I will show how restricting academic freedom makes society more vulnerable to irrational prejudices. And finally the third level will express how the marketplace of ideas is necessary in Americas High Schools.

My first level of analysis: Community Standards cannot be defined in a society such as ours. The first step in this level will be the realization that only personal standards exist. Supreme Court Justice Stewart once stated that he could probably never accurately define pornography but he knew it when he saw it. Stewart also helped draft in Miller vs. California the definition of Obscenity. That definition deemed community standards as legal criterion for defining something obscene. However, lets take a logical approach to this statement. Stewart did not say that he knew what pornography was when the community told him that it was; he said he knew it when he saw it. We can simply conclude that by saying this the Supreme Court justice was not applying community standards, he was applying his own personal standards. My second step will show how a Community Standard Cannot be Achieved. In many studies conducted across the United States law schools and Law reviews have been unable to find any community standards that would apply to the entire community. In other words they have found standards that would apply to a single family and maybe their neighbor, but never a standard that would be approved by the community as a whole. A perfect example of this would be our country and the way it is run. Our government is set up the way it is because our founding fathers knew that people would not think alike and could not be restricted to the views and standards of a single family or individual. We cannot expect people to bow down to standards that they do not believe in, especially when these standards affect the way their children are taught. Because of this fact we cannot assume that a single community standard exist for everyone, no matter where you live.

Now on to my second level of analysis: Restricting academic freedom will make society more vulnerable to irrational prejudices. My first step will deal with the topic of Race Superiority. H. G. Wells once stated that, Racism is when you have laws set up, systematically put in a way to keep people from advancing, to stop the advancement of a people. In order to understand this we must go back to where these prejudices came from and why. The leaders that passed laws increasing racism where taught that it was okay to think that one race was better than another, and the school boards at that time were in complete control of the teachers and their curriculum. Because of this we can safely say that the standards set up by the school boards where the reason that segregation laws were passed. The opinions of a few not only restrict what our children can learn but they also effect what will happen to our country in the future, wither it be for good or for bad. My second step will define the Intent of Separation of Church and Education. Religious teachings were taken out of schools due to the fact that the government did not want teachers to endorse or push a certain religious belief upon students as to only offer them a single point of view. Even when children go home they are put in a situation where a bias opinion is presented to them in the area of religion. Under the current laws and restrictions placed upon schools the only way a child can learn about any religion other than what their parents present to them is to go out on their own. This is when we must look to the definition of academic freedom. The definition tells us that all viewpoints will be presented and not just one. This includes all religions and the main ideas surrounding them. This will only promote respect of other peoples religious believes and less of a superiority complex that has become a big problem in todays youth.

On to my third level of analysis: The marketplace of ideas is necessary in Americas High Schools. Frederick Frieseke once said, The key to your universe is the right you have to choose. Step one in this level will show that the Right to Choose no longer exists in Public Education. Children a have right to learn; however, when we look at public education the students do not have the right to choose what they want to learn. This may be argued that a student has a right to pick certain classes for electives, this is true. But I am not talking about the right to choose classes; I am talking about what is being taught in the classes. Students should have the right to learn more than what a small group of adults think they should. If a student wants to learn more about a certain subject he must provide his own means of doing so. However, the limits placed upon on their education also extend to the computers and libraries in the schools, and in many cases even the public libraries, making it even harder for a student to increase their knowledge on a particular subject. Step number two will present how the Right to Choose Must be Present in High Schools. Until an adolescent reaches the age of eighteen he or she is required by law to be in school for a certain amount of hours each year. The reason for this law is to make sure that our country consist of well rounded, educated people. However our public school system is a contradiction of itself. If we require students to come to school and to be taught, the school has an obligation to educate the student. The marketplace of ideas symbolizes the learning process. In order for a person to make a decision and learn from it, they must have more than one thing to choose from, otherwise there is no choice to be made and in result no knowledge is gained. Plain and simple, if we require students to be in school, we must require the schools to teach and not read a script.

I have clearly shown that academic freedom must be valued above community standards in order to preserve knowledge. Through my three levels of analysis it has been shown that since we have no community standards we cannot follow them. I have also proven that by restricting academic freedom we are leaving our country vulnerable, and that a marketplace of ideas is vital for US high schools. It is obvious that the benefits of academic freedom outweigh the cost, and for that reason I urge an affirmative vote, thank you.

In the book, “Allitt, Patrick. The Conservatives: Ideas and Personalities Throughout American History. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009,” the author talks about how the ideas and personalities of a conservatives came into existence and how it shifted throughout time. In addition, the author reveals the perspective of other conservatives throughout history and their different approaches. In the beginning of the book, Patrick talks about the meaning of Federalist and where it originated. Patrick explains how there are two meanings for the term Federalist. He starts by explaining how Federalists are politicians of the 1780s who wrote the Constitution, and the Federalist people would argue that the Constitution should replace the Articles of Confederation. He continues on saying how the term Federalist was also originally referring to politicians who came together with George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adam around the 1790s and 1800s (Patrick 6).

Patrick then explains how their work was like a blueprint to how a nation would live, and how it came from their experiences and wisdom of ages, in which we know it today as the Constitution (Patrick 7). Patrick continues on explaining how the Constitution was written to confirm the increase of power for the federal government, which was crucial if there is to be stability. Although the Constitution was thought to be created to confirm the power of federal government, Patrick explains that Publius was always trying to reassure the readers that the federal government is limited to issuing concerns in local areas (Patrick 8). Publius states, “Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. . . . It may be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government (Patrick 9).” Publius is saying here that we should counteract an individual’s natural desires with another desire. For example, if a person wants to use an authoritative position for their own gain, there should be a system to hold them accountable for their actions. In the next couple of chapters, Patrick discusses about the Southern Conservatives and their ideals to conservatism. He begins by explaining that Southern Conservatives believed that a central government would be the death of republicanism.

He talks about how in the South, their economic interest was mainly based on farming and growing staples for export and it wasn’t until the discovery of tobacco, indigo, and rice that people started growing them too (Patrick 27). Patrick then talked about some influential people in the South and their ideals, in which included: Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison. Jefferson and Madison argued that states could intervene against federal legislation. They said that the states are justified by deciding whether Congress has surpassed the constitutional authority (Jefferson 29). Patrick then goes on talking about John Taylor and John Randolph who are Virginians and Southern conservatives. Taylor and Randolph feared city life and federal government. They believed that if a federal government were to progress, it would be threatening, similarly to the royal court in England. Taylor and Randolph favored active state militia, because it’s influence are more spread out and it’s not concentrated on an imperative power (Taylor & Randolph 30). As it continues to progress in the book, Patrick then talks about the impact of the Whigs and the Northern Antebellum Conservatism. Patrick starts by talking about how many historians regretted the election of Andrew Jackson in 1828, because he took advantage of his position and he enforced the banishment of the Five Civilized Tribe beyond the Mississippi. During the Nullification Crisis, Andrew Jackson also threatened to use military force upon South Carolina, and he also declared war against the second National Bank in 1832 (Patrick 46). The Whig Party was soon created, opposing Andrew Jackson’s action, and it competed with Democrats for national superiority around the 1830s and 1840s ( Patrick 47). It goes on saying how many writers and politicians, including: Daniel Webster and Henry Clay, wanted to mix social stability with opportunities relating economic modernization (Webster 47).

Based on my readings and thoughts about this book, Patrick is trying to make the point that throughout history the ideas and personalities of a conservative have changed. Patrick shows this by presenting different dates and times in history where there are different conservative ideas and views. I think what makes it convincing is that Patrick presents the ideas and views of different conservatives in different places of the world. He also doesn’t just look at the different views in these conservatives, but he emphasizes on why they view it that way either due to a disagreement or a historical event that occurred. After analyzing this book, I think it shows that even though people may have the same beliefs or values, they may interpret things differently, similarly to the conservatives who had different approaches. Based on this, how do we consider what is actually good or best for a certain situation? Whether it’s how people interpret God’s word or how a government should run to provide stability and protection for citizens, how would we know what is the best solution to these complex ideas and situations? Because the book presents conservatives from different places of the world, and their different views and perspectives, how can we know that this certain perspective is the best approach to handling an issue or conflict?

Overall, I think this book is trying to show that the time period your currently in and the different events that are occuring can affect an individual’s perspectives on things, in which Patrick was explaining about the ideas and perspective of conservatives throughout history.

James Madison wrote a number of papers regarding many different important political issues of his time period. Federalist # 10 is mainly about Factions, how they are bad for our country, and how to reduce their effects to a minimum. A number of his views are very similar to those of enlightenment age thinkers such as, John Locke, Rousseau, Montesquieu, and Voltaire. However he also disagreed with many things these people said.

Madison’s main argument is about the Creation of Factions. Madison defines a faction as a number of citizens, usually in a minority, who are united by a common interest adversed to the rights of others. He claims that these are bad because their goal is to make things better for themselves however they do not always look out for the interests of the rest of the country. He states that there are only one way to prevent factions and it is to remove its causes, you can do this by, one getting rid of the peoples liberty, or two make sure everyone has the same opinions. It is obvious that the first cure is going against our own principals, and the second is just impractical to have happen, because as long as people have freedom they will form their own opinions. He states that the only logical thing we can do is attempt to control a faction’s effects. If it is a minority faction it can be controlled simply by a majority vote. However stopping a majority faction is much more difficult. The only ways to stop it are to either take the passion out of the people trying to pass it, or to let them fall apart due to a lack of organization. He also discusses his different ideas for what type of a political system our country should have. He discusses a direct democracy because everyone has a fair say in the government. However this allows a majority faction to do whatever they want to do. He also suggests a republic, this is because a republic can represent a larger number of citizens without their being confusion and with much less time wasted. Also, a republic can effectively rule over a much larger area. A downside to this however is that there can still be corrupt people who become politicians, and one corrupt person makes a lot bigger of a difference in this system. There is also the problem of if there are to few representatives not everybody with be represented, however to many and there will be confusion and they will not be on a personal level with the people. Madison states that the best solution is to have a republic with a separation of powers. Have a national government to make decisions on larger problems and a state government to make the decisions on smaller local problems.

James Madison shared many points of view with a plethora of enlightenment age thinkers. Some of these include that he is big for all types of liberty and freedom. This is a big point that Rousseau always would fight for. Also his idea of having a separation of powers shows a striking resemblance to the thoughts of Montesquieu. Voltaire is another thinker who believed that two of the most important things to have are, one freedom of speech, and two no religion in the government. Of course last was that he believed that the government had to protect the rights of the people within it as John Locke had said.

However much he had in common people always have different opinions on at least some things. Some of these include that while Madison wanted a republic with separation of powers, Rousseau believed that the only logical kind of government is a pure democracy. A point of view that Madison Strongly disagrees with. This could be because of the increasingly large population of the United States at the time. Second, is that while Madison did have a separation of powers Montesquieu believed in Checks and balances to makes sure that each branch had some amount of power over the others.

James Madison was a great thinker of his time with many great ideas such as how to control factions along with the positives and negatives of different types of governments. He may have single handedly put together some of the greatest ideas of his time in order to help build the basis for one of the greatest governments we could have created. This is why James Madison is one of the most important people in the history of the United States.

James Madison, also known as the “Father of the Constitution” was one of the few Founding Fathers who served as the president of the United States and served a pivotal role in constructing the Bill of Rights and the Federalist Papers defining the powers of the Constitution. His strongest argument was establishing the capabilities of the government had on controlling the damages and violence caused by factions. He describes factions as groups of people who share the same beliefs and ideas who gather together to promote their special interests and political opinions. Due to the fact that not everyone has the same lens on life, these factions are usually constantly at odds with one another by working against the public interest thus frequently infringing upon the rights of each other. Given the nature of man, factions are inescapable. As long as humans hold different opinions, hold different amounts of wealth, live different lifestyles, they will continue to clash with those who are different to them. In order to avoid this problem, Madison believed he could fix the situation by offering two solutions either by fixing the issue at hand or to control its effects.

The first solution involved the removal of freedoms from the factions, including the basic rights of speech and assembly. Once these rights were to be removed it would be worse than the root of the problem. Madison described that “liberty is to faction what air is to fire”, without one or the other it would wreak chaos. Once liberty is taken away from the fraction, democracy is completely eradicated. The second method calls for making sure that every individual regardless of opposing views, is demanded to share the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests on almost everything. This would be humanly impossible due to that fact that people aren’t genetically wired to think the same. The causes of factions are part of the nature of man and are practically inevitable.

With nearly all directions of solutions being depleted, Madison established a new form of government. A representative type of government in which the many elect the few who govern. He stated that factions revolve around a constant problem where the majority will always overrule the minority. To fix this, a Republic was created where a representative would be elected and the incorrect opinion of the majority would be voted out ensuring that no corruption could possibly arise. According to Madison, not any type of Republic would deem fit. He believed that one with multiple representatives would achieve greater accomplishments because more qualified individuals, elected by a greater number of citizens, would be the least likely to sacrifice the public good for short-term benefits. Even if one corrupt leader were to be elected, the majority would overpower the bad apple out. With the new number of people being elected into office, more splits of different ideas and beliefs began to form new factions. To further avoid future corruption from a new set of majority groups, the idea of checks and balances became the ultimate solution. Rather than having the Legislative Branch intact all of the nation’s law, the Judicial Branch was created to ensure the laws being made were not unjust or unfair to the people of the society. With the power being divided between the two branches, it reduced the amount of factions and eliminated the possibility of corruption.

In today’s time, the most obvious type of faction is the rivalry between Democrats and Republicans with each group strongly displaying different views on certain things, attracting individuals that favor their decisions. The Democratic Party favors same-sex marriage, labor unions, minorities, and progressive income taxes, while the Republican Party favors a more conservative view with a free market, limited power of government, and the lowering of taxes. The United States pro-choice movement is an inspiring movement concerning the safety and the pledged support that a woman has the legal right to terminate her pregnancy at any given moment regardless of the situation behind it. In the United States, the Democratic Party’s platform endorses the pro-choice movement stating that its “my body, my choice”. However, not all Democrats agree. There is a small pro-life faction within the party named Democrats for Life of America, where their main objective is to encourage the Democratic Party to oppose euthanasia, capital punishment and abortion. Madison’s argument about fixing the issue at hand can clearly apply to this topic. Because there is no definitive right or wrong answer to the topic of abortion, the right for every individual to mind their own privacy is possibly the solution to a complicated topic.

The strong association between the Republican Party and White Supremacy has been a highly profiled coverage in the press and media in recent times. Many of the office leaders within the Republican Party have condemned the attrious and evil acts of those in the KKK or the American Nazi Party. Yet, many of the famous and well known leaders behind those groups have strongly and blatantly connected themselves to the GOP claiming that their views align as one. Neither of Madison’s solutions for fixing the problem or controlling the effects can apply here. Racism cannot be removed nor can the spread of racism be controlled across state lines. Even when fought in Supreme Court Cases, the first amendment will always remain at the top. The publication of the Federalist Papers were done as a deliberate act to unify and ease the stress caused by a newly created nation. The creation of The Constitution ignited a fear within the Anti-Federalists that a central government would be the collapse of a starting nation. Today, many of the factions are seen as non-violent groups who accomplish their desires with either protests or petitions. The advancement in technology has made it easier for people to get their opinions out in more efficient ways through the use of media, TV, newspapers, and the Internet. While Madison’s arguments may not entirely apply to factions today, it is astonishing to believe many of his points remain valid after centuries of a developing world.

On May 25, 1787, delegates representing every state except Rhode Island gathered together at Philadelphia’s Pennsylvania State House for the Constitutional Convention. The assembly immediately discarded the idea of amending the Articles of Confederation and set about drawing up a brand new plan for the government. During an intense debate, the delegates forged a federal system characterized by a complicated system of checks and balances. The convention was divided over numerous issues, the biggest one being state representation in Congress. The delegates who started to doubt the documents ratification due to the division in the convention noted that history had shown that large republics tended to decay into various forms of tyranny. The delegates who were strongly for the ratification of the document took matters into their own hands. They wanted to rally citizens and delegates to support the Constitution. This is how the Federalist papers came to be written.

The Federalist Papers consist of eighty-five letters written to newspapers in the late 1780s to urge the ratification of the U.S. Constitution. One of the Federalist papers is Number 10 by James Madison, and was written for this division issue. Due to the fact that James Madison not only acknowledged the concerns of some delegates, but also gave a counter argument to explain why the Constitution will fix problems rather than impose them, is one of the reasons why Federalist Paper Number 10 adequately defends the need for the Constitution. Madison begins by stating that private rights and public good would be best protected in a single large republic rather than a mixture of small republics. He countered the concern about the republic leading to tyranny by stating that it was exactly the great number of factions and diversity that would avoid tyranny. He explained that groups would be forced to negotiate and compromise among themselves, arriving at solutions that would respect the rights of minorities.

However that isn’t to say that no one gave anything up for the Constitution. Explicitly stated in the document Madison says “It must be confessed, that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representative too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects”.

Madison insisted that in order to have a Constitution they must form a “happy combination” of certain arguments, as stated in the document. The meaning and purpose of Madison’s Federalist Paper Number 10 becomes clearer as one continues to read. He argues for the Constitution in a way that explains why we need it, and also what things we will lack if we don’t ratify it. It is by using a combination of those arguments that Madison was able to get his view across.

In today’s time Madison’s Federalist Paper Number 10 is considered one of the most influential papers. It rebuts the Anti-federalists’ argument that a republic would soon crumble under the pressure of factional divisions. Madison outlined how a republican government could balance the needs of the minority and majority while preserving liberty and diversity. This document is one of the main reasons we have the Constitution that we abide by today.

While the term interest group is not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, the framers were aware that individuals would band together in an attempt to use government in their favor. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned of the dangers of “factions,” minorities who would organize around issues they felt strongly about, possibly to the detriment of the majority. But Madison believed limiting these factions was worse than facing the evils they might produce, because such limitations would violate individual freedoms. Instead, the natural way to control factions was to let them flourish and compete against each other. The sheer number of interests in the United States suggests that many have, indeed, flourished. They compete with similar groups for membership, and with opponents for access to decision-makers. Some people suggest there may be too many interests in the United States. Others argue that some have gained a disproportionate amount of influence over public policy, whereas many others are underrepresented.

Madison’s definition of factions can apply to both interest groups and political parties. But unlike political parties, interest groups do not function primarily to elect candidates under a certain party label or to directly control the operation of the government. Political parties in the United States are generally much broader coalitions that represent a significant proportion of citizens. In the American two-party system, the Democratic and Republican Parties spread relatively wide nets to try to encompass large segments of the population. In contrast, while interest groups may support or oppose political candidates, their goals are usually more issue-specific and narrowly focused on areas like taxes, the environment, and gun rights or gun control, or their membership is limited to specific professions. They may represent interests ranging from well-known organizations, such as the Sierra Club, IBM, or the American Lung Association, to obscure ones, such as the North Carolina Gamefowl Breeders Association. Thus, with some notable exceptions, specific interest groups have much more limited membership than do political parties.

Political parties and interest groups both work together and compete for influence, although in different ways. While interest group activity often transcends party lines, many interests are perceived as being more supportive of one party than the other. The American Conservative Union, Citizens United, the National Rifle Association, and National Right to Life are more likely to have relationships with Republican lawmakers than with Democratic ones. Americans for Democratic Action, Moveon.org, and the Democratic Governors Association all have stronger relationships with the Democratic Party. Parties and interest groups do compete with each other, however, often for influence. At the state level, we typically observe an inverse relationship between them in terms of power. Interest groups tend to have greater influence in states where political parties are comparatively weaker.

Judicial History: William Marbury filed for a writ of mandamus with the United States Supreme Court to direct Secretary of State James Madison in delivering the commission of Marbury as Justice of the Peace for the District of Columbia in the county of Washington.

Facts: In 1801 Congress passed an act separating the District of Columbia into two districts with the Justice of the Peace to be appointed by the President of the United States. President John Adams signed a commission for Marbury as a Justice of the Peace for the county of Washington during the last days of his presidency that earned the seal of the United States bind to it. Madison declined to remit the commission to Marbury believing they were null as they were not conveyed in advance of the Adams Presidency. Marbury filed for a writ of mandamus with the United States Supreme Court beneath the Judiciary Act of 1789 to award his commission. Issues: Does the Supreme Court have the legality of Judicial Review, does Marbury have a right to the commission he orders and did the Supreme Court have the right to grant a writ of mandamus?

Holdings: It has been decided that Marbury has a right to his commission and a remedy. The Supreme Court can analyze the law to approve the laws acknowledge by the constitution and the constitution does not give the Supreme Court the right in this case. Reasoning: Even though the President at the time did designate him a justice of peace for the county of Washington, it did not verify and consequently the action did not finish. The indicated clash between federal law and the Constitution granted the Supreme Court to establish its first example of being able to act on Judicial Review and the power to rule a law not constitutional.

“To enable this court then to issue a mandamus, it must be shown to be an exercise of appellate jurisdiction, or to be necessary to enable them to exercise appellate jurisdiction. It has been stated at the bar that the appellate jurisdiction may be exercised in a variety of forms, and that, if it be the will of the Legislature that a mandamus should be used for that purpose that must be obeyed. This is true; yet the jurisdiction must be appellate, not original.’

Although a writ of mandamus would be an appropriate remedy in this situation, the Supreme Court is not able to grant this. The Supreme Court ruled the Judiciary Act of 1789 as not constitutional; they do not have the jurisdiction hearing the case. Granting a mandamus would be constructing the case instead of editing the rulings of preceding courts and this is not an area of jurisdiction admitted to the Supreme Court by Article three of the constitution.

In 1784, Patrick Henry proposed a general tax on Virginians to support teachers of Christianity for the benefit of the common good. In response, James Madison wrote the Memorial and Remonstrance in 1785. In the document, Madison argued against the tax proclaiming it was a “dangerous abuse of power” because it violated a man’s individual unalienable rights. Further, he proposed a subordination of the secular to the divine and argued that religious freedom was not given up upon entering Civil Society. In other words, people were first subjects to God and then to Civil Society, and since Civil Society could not regulate a person’s religious views, neither could the government. Therefore, any attempt to do so was a usurpation of liberties by the legislature. Madison began the document by addressing the General Assembly and titling the piece. Immediately, it was obvious Madison planned to do two things; memorial and remonstrance. The remonstrance was the protest against the tax bill and the memorial was the reasons backing it up. In this way, the document appeared like the Declaration of Independence in the sense that both documents laid out a logical progression of arguments to support an overarching conclusion. As a result, Madison’s claim was already effectively structured to prove its own validity.

Next, Madison prefaced his Remonstrance with a short preamble referencing the postponement of the bill. After which, Virginians arrived at the conclusion contained in the document. Madison purposefully used the term “We the subscribers”, instead of “I”. This indicated he was speaking on behalf of the entire Virginian population rather than just himself and as a result, strengthened his statements because it showed popular opinion supported Madison’s own beliefs. Furthermore, it emphasized he was writing as a representative of the people, which was an important element of self-government that was valued at the time. In the preamble, Madison stated his overarching claim that if the bill became a law, it would be “a dangerous abuse of power.” As such, he proclaimed all “faithful members of a free state” were “bound” to protest it. Even while he made an argument for the disestablishment of religion, he called on the “faithful” of Virginia to do it. Therefore, he assumed the audience were both Christian and devoted citizens. While he might have done this to play to his skeptical audience in order to gain political advantage, he also established the dual character of American life which was made relevant in his later arguments about where religion fit among the duties of Civil Society.

Madison then defended his claim. First, he reminded the legislature of its own laws by restating a quote from the Virginia Declaration of Rights proclaiming it was a “fundamental and undeniable truth” that religion “can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence.” Second, he implied a link between Virginia’s laws and the “truths” of the Declaration of Independence by using language such as ”fundamental” and ”undeniable truth.” Thus, his argument that “every man” had the right to exercise religious freedom was convincing because he had already established common principles most Americans at that time would agree with. Madison also stated the free exercise of religion was not only a right, but “this right is in its nature an unalienable right” as well. This was because man was born in a natural state of freedom. If man was truly created free, his freedom included the mind too. Therefore, no man dictated the reason of another man and since conscience was directed by reason, no man could determine another man’s freedom of conscience either. Furthermore, stated Madison, it was unalienable because there exists a divine “duty towards the Creator” and every man decided for himself what was acceptable to him in discharging that duty. In effect, Madison implied people should only pay homage based on what they saw fit. Therefore, if a tax was required but did not match a man’s own individual convictions, it violated his unalienable rights. Furthermore, it undermined religion because when a person was forced to do something, instead of choosing it, belief was devalued.

Madison then declared man’s duties to God came above Civil Society, “both in order of time and in degree of obligation.” In other words, he argued that man believed in God before he pledged allegiance to a society and as a result, his duties to God came first and his rights as a citizen came second. “In order to time” might have also referenced a time period prior to organized civilization altogether. Meanwhile, “degree of obligation” could be understood in two ways. First, if it referenced the amount of involvement of an individual in their own church, it tied back to Madison’s earlier argument that man had the right to practice religion as his conscience dictated. Thus, the tax was unacceptable because it interfered in a man’s ability to choose and practice religion. “Degree of obligation” could also be read as a reference to levels of importance of religion in a man’s life. Meaning, a man’s moral responsibility outweighed those of Civil Society because religion took precedence over citizenship. Either way, the tax was an abuse of power because it might require a man to put his duties as a citizen above his duties toward the Creator. Madison also stated if a man chose to enter “into any subordinate Association,” it was done knowing that God came first. Therefore, man did not give up religious liberty or freedom of conscience to become a citizen and man’s religious rights remained wholly intact upon entering society. Consequently, the realm of religion was beyond the power of legislation and forcing a man to give money for religious purposes, even if it was for the common good, was an abuse of power. “Rulers who are guilty of such an encroachment” were viewed by Madison as “tyrants.”

Finally, Madison acknowledged the will of the majority and the possibility of abuse of power and infringement on the rights of the minority. He built on this argument in later points of the document by stating it was more difficult to limit a power after precedents were set than to prevent a power from being usurped in the first place. For example, a future government might go further than just the tax bill and if so, there was nothing to prevent it from excluding other sects of Christianity or forcing citizens to “conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever.” Consequently, even though the majority made the decision on this issue, they needed to be aware of the minority’s rights. Here, he implied the tax bill was not only a dangerous abuse of religious liberty but might have even worse consequences in the future if it passed. In addition to logical statements, Madison’s claim was strengthened by his purposeful use of rhetoric. He consistently used the term “every man” to implicitly draw out the individualistic nature of religion. Similarly, he utilized terms such as fundamental, undeniable, and unalienable in such a way to make them appear interchangeable, knowing it would increase public support. He also emphasized the relationships between the terms “right”, “unalienable”, “Creator”, “duty”, and “Civil Society” by including them in simultaneous sentences throughout the arguments. As a result, the ideas were mutually bonded as if it were impossible to have one without the other.

If a weakness existed, it was Madison’s assumption that Americans had faith in a Creator who endowed them with rights. If, for example, an individual was an atheist or agnostic and did not believe in transcendent ideals such as unalienable rights, would the claim remain true? The answer was no. Hence, the fact that most Americans at the time were “faithful” made a big difference. However, in Madison’s time, that assumption would not have been questioned and as a result, he presented a sound argument. Consequently, Madison’s claim that the assessment bill was a “dangerous abuse of power” was valid because it was logically structured and supported. His argument proved that religion was an unalienable right in the republican form of government and that man had a duty first to his Creator and then to Civil Society. Therefore, if society could not dictate a man’s conscience, neither could the government. Additionally, Madison demonstrated the future dangers that existed if the majority failed to consider the rights of the minority and as a result, showed that any tax that forced a man to give money for religious purposes was a usurpation of power by the legislature. Meanwhile, the effective use of rhetoric strengthened his argument because it appealed to the public at the time. True, a modern audience might question his assumption of American faithfulness in a Creator, but since that was the prevailing belief in Madison’s time, the criticism is unfair. As a result, he not only defeated the tax assessment bill, but his ideas remained guiding principles for the nation, appearing again in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights where Madison promoted religious liberty once again.