| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Bret Cahill" |
| Date: |
28 May 2005 10:34:42 AM |
| Object: |
Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
James Madison Reflects on the Division of Power
Intro by Devin Bent
James Madison's views on the appropriate division of power between the
federal and state governments were influenced by the events of the day,
events in which he was a leading participant. He came to the
Constitutional Convention a proponent of a strong national government,
influenced by the "experienced inadequacy" of the Articles of
Confederation and by Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts. He
unsuccessfully advocated that the national legislature (Congress) be
given "an indefinite power to negative [veto] legislative acts of the
states."
http://www.jmu.edu/madison/center/main_pages/madison_archives/life/retirement/division.htm
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
28 May 2005 02:40:56 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in
news:1117294482.754349.245860@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
He
unsuccessfully advocated that the national legislature (Congress) be
given "an indefinite power to negative [veto] legislative acts of the
states."
He indeed suggested that in his callow youth --- a suggestion he later
repudiated:
"[T]he General Assembly doth express its deep regret, that a spirit has
been manifested by the federal government, to enlarge its powers by forced
constructions of the constitutional charter which defines them; and that
implications have appeared of a design to expound certain general phrases
so as to destroy the meaning and effect, of the particular enumeration
which necessarily explains and limits the general phrases; and so as to
consolidate the states by degrees, into one sovereignty, the obvious
tendency and inevitable consequence of which would be, to transform the
present republican system of the United States, into an absolute, or at
best a mixed monarchy."
Quoting out of context again, eh Brett?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
28 May 2005 05:30:00 PM |
|
|
< Quoting out of context again, eh Brett?
All it is is a page -- the entire page -- from a web site. Anyone can
verify it.
How come you don't have any web sites?
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
28 May 2005 11:21:29 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1117319400.900004.3900
@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
< Quoting out of context again, eh Brett?
All it is is a page -- the entire page -- from a web site. Anyone can
verify it.
But you didn't *quote* the entire page. Instead you quoted a comment which
the rest of the page refuted.
How come you don't have any web sites?
You mean to cite? Or one of my own?
I've cited a dozen or more in these exchanges. Also gave one of my own.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
28 May 2005 05:08:36 PM |
|
|
(Beginning of cut/snip)
James Madison's views on the appropriate division of power between the
federal and state governments were influenced by the events of the day,
events in which he was a leading participant. He came to the
Constitutional Convention a proponent of a strong national government,
influenced by the "experienced inadequacy" of the Articles of
Confederation and by Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts.
(End of cut/snip)
<> He
<> unsuccessfully advocated that the national legislature (Congress) be
<> given "an indefinite power to negative [veto] legislative acts of
the
<> states."
< He indeed suggested that in his callow youth
It was just before he went to work on the Constitution, when he was
"principled.".
Madison became a practical politician later on.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
28 May 2005 11:13:42 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1117318116.854777.275290
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
<> He
<> unsuccessfully advocated that the national legislature (Congress) be
<> given "an indefinite power to negative [veto] legislative acts of
the
<> states."
< He indeed suggested that in his callow youth
It was just before he went to work on the Constitution, when he was
"principled.".
Madison became a practical politician later on.
Neat rationalization, Brett.
Actually, though, I agree with you that Madison wanted a strong national
goverment, and did so consistently throughout his life. But he always
envisioned it as a government having strictly limited powers. He was always
wary of state interference with interstate commerce.
And of course he opposed the "nullification" doctrine which had begun to be
touted near the end of his life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
29 May 2005 07:37:59 AM |
|
|
< I agree with you that Madison wanted a
< strong national goverment, and did so
< consistently throughout his life.
It's common knowledge. That's why I didn't answer immediately. It
took me less than 3 minutes to google the UVA page.
< But he always envisioned it as a
< government having strictly limited powers.
Every social liberal Democrat will agree that the government -- state
or federal -- shouldn't be regulating religion or abortion or
marriages, etc. That's why the Establishment Clause, irrelevant to
libertarianism, is so important, the first freedom for Democrats from
Jefferson to Madison to FDR to Clinton.
Nor am I against the proper interpretation of states' rights, which
should be freedom for the individual as in Oregon's assisted suicide
law, not the "right" to discriminate against minorities or to have
interstate traffic collectivise costs / privatize profits.
Every classical political scientist will tell you smaller states are
more free. The wars of the 20th Century centralized and increased
national power a little more than what either Madison or I might want.
The danger of a civil war, or rather the Civil War from slave v free
states, however, is over.
Finally and most important for my own goals, I wouldn't be a factor
politically if it wasn't for our federalism. The courts in a purely
national government really could flush me down the toilet. They could
dust off their hands saying, "we estoppeled that scumbag."
The first time I really looked at the federal system it was like
looking at a CV joint for the first time. I just thought it was so
plural, so interesting, so clever, so wonderful.
It was love at first sight.
Bret Cahill
". . . he waged a rear-guard action against the rise of doctrines of
nullification and states' rights."
http://www.virginia.edu/pjm
/bi?og.
html
It was to be a long and active retirement. Of necessity Madison threw
himself into the management of his large plantation, interesting
himself in scientific farming as a means to counter the increasing
unprofitability of Virginia agriculture. Beginning in 1816 he sat on
the Board of Visitors planning the creation of the University of
Virginia, and when Jefferson died in 1826 he became the university's
second rector. His public appearances were few, but in his
correspondence he waged a rear-guard action against the rise of
doctrines of nullification and states' rights. His last public
political appearance was in 1829 at the Virginia convention to draw up
a new state constitution, where he spoke against the overrepresentation
of the Tidewater region in the House of Delegates. He died at his home
on June 28, 1836.
http://www.virginia.edu/pjm
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
30 May 2005 03:23:29 AM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1117370279.556337.274370
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
Every social liberal Democrat will agree that the government -- state
or federal -- shouldn't be regulating religion or abortion or
marriages, etc. That's why the Establishment Clause, irrelevant to
libertarianism, is so important, the first freedom for Democrats from
Jefferson to Madison to FDR to Clinton.
Irrelevant? No provision of the Bill of Rights is irrelevant to
libertarians. Where did you get that idea?
Although libertarians and "liberals" are in most cases on the same side in
First Amendment controversies, the latter have been far more willing to
entertain "exceptions" in recent years than the former, e.g, "hate speech"
and "commercial speech."
And "liberals" are perfectly willing to expand the *powers* of government.
They're unable to see that individual rights and government power are
antithetical concepts.
Nor am I against the proper interpretation of states' rights, which
should be freedom for the individual as in Oregon's assisted suicide
law, not the "right" to discriminate against minorities or to have
interstate traffic collectivise costs / privatize profits.
There is no such thing as a "state's right." All rights reside in
individuals. The federal government and the states each exercise certain
*powers*. The 9th Amendment mentions rights; the 10th, powers. The
terminology is Lockean, and is significant.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
30 May 2005 09:40:19 AM |
|
|
<> Every social liberal Democrat will agree that the government --
state
<> or federal -- shouldn't be regulating religion or abortion or
<> marriages, etc. That's why the Establishment Clause, irrelevant to
<> libertarianism, is so important, the first freedom for Democrats
from
<> Jefferson to Madison to FDR to Clinton.
< Irrelevant? No provision of the Bill of Rights
< is irrelevant to libertarians.
Why is it important to libertarians?
< Where did you get that idea?
Libertarians don't want to just privatize religion sex and private
matters. Libertarians want to privatize PUBLIC matters like the
economy.
Paine and Jeffeson took the powers of the the "private sector" of their
day, aka, George III, and tuned them over to the collective.
< Although libertarians and "liberals" are in
< most cases on the same side in First
< Amendment controversies, the latter have
< been far more willing to
< entertain "exceptions" in recent years than
< the former, e.g, "hate speech"
The First Amendment is about economic information, not nekked nazi flag
burner parades.
The nekked nazi "controversies" are a scam to displace free speech on
vital economic issues -- nothing more.
< and "commercial speech."
I haven't really heard anything against commercial speech. A decade
ago a Supreme Court decision was so much in favor of commercial speech
it suggested the UPL (Unauthorized Practice of Law) laws would be
struck down. I faxed it to a non lawyer being sued by the Florida Bar.
Even though it was just dicta apparently the Fla. lawyers took it
seriously. They preferred to let him continue to charge for legal
advice than risk the high court opening the flood gates.
< And "liberals" are perfectly willing to
< expand the *powers* of government.
I don't see anything more creative than the Louisiana purchase.
< They're unable to see that individual rights
< and government power are antithetical
< concepts.
Libertarians are unable to comprehend that the most important
individual rights, free speech with the public and the "right to
travel" are always 100% dependent on public funding.
If you cannot even get the basics, how are you going to understand more
sophisticated aspects of the proper individual/collective relationship?
What Montesquieu understood and Warren Buffet has made 100 billion
understanding and what Greenspan finally admitted:
Higher taxes => more freedom = better economy
<> Nor am I against the proper interpretation of states' rights, which
<> should be freedom for the individual as in Oregon's assisted suicide
<> law, not the "right" to discriminate against minorities or to have
<> interstate traffic collectivise costs / privatize profits.
< There is no such thing as a "state's right." All rights reside in
< individuals.
Even many liberdopes will admit that smaller states are more free than
large countries.
That was the whole point of the federal government. The small states
provide the freedom and the large nation provides the security.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Publius" |
|
| Title: Re: Madison Advocated Unlimited Power for the National Government |
30 May 2005 05:01:40 PM |
|
|
"Bret Cahill" <BretCahill@aol.com> wrote in news:1117464019.724051.127880
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
< Irrelevant? No provision of the Bill of Rights
< is irrelevant to libertarians.
Why is it important to libertarians?
Obviously, because they don't believe religion is the business of the
State. The same reason (I would assume) it is important to "liberals."
Libertarians don't want to just privatize religion sex and private
matters. Libertarians want to privatize PUBLIC matters like the
economy.
Well, I'm sure that is the nub of our disagreement. The economic activity
of persons is as private a matter as their religious activities. I am a
plumber; you are a painter. You have a leak. You ask me to find and fix
it, in exchange for a painting. I agree. I fix the leak, you give me the
painting. We've both just engaged in an economic activity. In what sense
is that "public?"
Government intrusion into that transaction amounts to (as Nozick put it),
"interference in economic relations between consenting adults."
Paine and Jeffeson took the powers of the the "private sector" of their
day, aka, George III, and tuned them over to the collective.
You equate George III's claims of sovereignty with the "private sector?"
Can you cite any sources (Paine, Jefferson, et al) supporting that
interpretation? What "private sector" institution or person or
organization claims sovereign powers?
The First Amendment is about economic information, not nekked nazi flag
burner parades.
The First Amendment is about all information.
Libertarians are unable to comprehend that the most important
individual rights, free speech with the public and the "right to
travel" are always 100% dependent on public funding.
The free exercise of all rights is dependent on government. That is why
governments are created --- to protect rights (" . . . governments are
instituted among men to preserve and protect these rights.") What is your
point?
If you cannot even get the basics, how are you going to understand more
sophisticated aspects of the proper individual/collective relationship?
There is no "individual/collective relationship." All human relationships
connect individuals to other individuals. A society, or any other such
collective term, is just a shorthand word for a number of individuals,
each of whom forges such relationships with others as suit him. There is
no collective entity with whom he could relate even if he wanted to.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
