Or, is diversity of opinion beneficial to the success of a federal government? After the constitutional Convention of 1787 had ended and the proposed Constitution had been submitted to the American people for ratification, public debates raged between those who supported the constitution (Federalists) and those who opposed it (Anti-federalists). One of the central issues in the debates was whether it would be possible to unite the thirteen states into one great nation, under one federal government, in such a way that the individual states and their respective governments would not be eliminated and with. This question, in fact, had been one of the most important questions at the convention, and had kept delegates preoccupied for the better part of half the time they had spent in Philadelphia. Delegates such as James Madison and James Wilson had put forward a plan that would transform the American Union from a loose confederation of sovereign and independent states as they were considered to be under the Articles of Confederation to a nation of one people. This was accomplished, in the end, by altering the scheme of representation: under the Articles of Confederation, each state legislature selected delegates to a unicameral Congress, and each state delegation had an equal vote on all national matters; under the proposed Constitution, a bicameral Congress. The effect was that under the new federal arrangement, the Union was no longer to be based simply on a league of friendship between sovereign and independent states, but on a contract between all Americans united in one nation a nation that was already vast.
Summary and Analysis Gradesaver
No state can emit paper money, lay any duties, or imposts, on imports, or exports without consent of the congress and the net produce is for the benefit of the United States. Therefore, the only recourse left for the states to support their own governments and discharge their debts is by direct taxation. This too however, could be eradicated by the federal government, who also has the power of direct taxation. Where the federal government exercises this essentially unlimited authority, it would be impossible for the states to raise money on their own behalf due to the limited monetary resources of its citizens. Without money, states cannot be supported and their powers would be absorbed by the federal government thus eliminating any sovereignty or autonomy left to the states. Today, opinions differ over the appropriate size, scope, and power of the federal government. Regardless of personal views, it is hard to deny that Brutus makes several compelling arguments highlighting the potential dangers of a large national government. Questions to consider, which form of government (a large national republic or a confederation of small republics) is more likely to preserve and protect personal liberties and why? Can a larger republic, based on the principle of consent of the governed, sufficiently protect the rights and liberties of the individual states and people, or is a confederation the only method of securing such liberty? Should the federal legislature be able point to repeal state laws in order to impose federal laws for the purpose of promoting the general welfare or common defense of the nation? Brutus argues that in a republic, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similarif not, there will be a constant clashing of opinions and the representatives of one part will be constantly striving against the ould a republic be made.targus
He believed that the constitution and laws of every state would nullified and declared void if they were, or shall be inconsistent with the constitution. Brutus argued that under the necessary and Proper Clause, congress would be able to repeal state fundraising laws. If Congress believed that a state law may prevent the collection of a federal tax that is essays necessary and proper to provide for the general welfare of the United States, then Congress would have the authority to repeal the law under the necessary and proper. Furthermore, because all laws made in pursuance of the constitution are the supreme law of the land, the states would have no recourse. Therefore, the government is complete, and no longer a confederation of smaller republics. According to Brutus, there was no limit upon the legislative power to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises. Although this authority was technically limited to raising money to pay debts and provide for the general welfare and common defense, brutus argued that these restrictions do not impose any actual limitation on the legislative powers under the constitution. In reality, only the legislature had the authority to contract debts and determine what is necessary to provide for the general welfare and common defense of the nation. Therefore, the legislatures authority to lay taxes and duties is rendered unlimited.
Although it has not been definitively established, these essays are generally attributed to robert Yates. . The Brutus essays provide the most direct and compelling rebuttal of the federalist argument. . This lesson provides a summation of arguments made in Brutus first essay written to the citizens of the state of New York. Assignment, read, brutus. 1 Excerpts Annotated and answer the questions at the end of the lesson. In his first essay, brutus considered whether or not the thirteen states should be reduced to one republic as the federalists proposed. After examining various clauses in the constitution, he determined that this would essentially create a federal government that will possess absolute and uncontrollable power Brutus pointed to the necessary and Proper Clause (3.8.18) and the supremacy Clause (6.2.0) as sources of immense power conferred upon. According to Brutus, the two clauses, essentially render the various State governments powerless.
Brutus - an analysis of the Character
Brutus makes a statement that seems eerily descriptive of what is happening today: In a republic, he says, the manners, sentiments, and interests of the people should be similar. If this be not the case, there will be a constant clashing of opinions; and the representatives of one part will be continually striving against those of the other. This will retard the operations of government, and prevent such conclusions as will promote the public good. In other words, it is impossible to create one set of national laws to govern one big, sale diverse country! So why are we trying so hard to do that today?
And why are we surprised when the rancor and vitriol in politics gets worse and worse all the time? I doubt Brutus would be surprised. Brutus concludes with a discussion of all the reasons that it is impossible to keep officers honest in a big, national government. They abuse their power and soon lose the trust and respect of the citizens. Maybe he saw that one coming, too. In order to develop a comprehensive understanding of the American founding, it is important to also understand the Anti-federalist objections to the ratification of the constitution. . Among the most important of the Anti-federalist writings are the essays of Brutus. .
Many scholars believe that Brutus was actually robert Yates, a judge in New York who had served as a (displeased) delegate to the constitutional Convention. Brutus eventually wrote 16 essays that would be published in New York-area newspapers. I will summarize a few highlights of his lengthy paper. Brutus asks whether it is best to create a confederated government in which the United States is reduced to one great republic, governed by one legislature, and under the direction of one executive and judicial. He doesnt think the constitution directly creates such a national government, yet it approaches so near to it, that it must, if executed, certainly and infallibly terminate.
He worries about the provision giving Congress power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, particularly when combined with the provision making federal laws the supreme law of the land and the governments extensive taxing. The authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted, he concludes. It connects with it almost all other powers, or at least will in process of time draw all other after. He worries that, under the circumstances, the little power left to the states must very soon be annihilated. Brutus reiterates the truth confirmed that every man will try to extend his own power at every opportunity. Thus, we can absolutely expect a federal legislature full of fallible human beings to work to increase their own power and ultimately to subvert the state authority. One, consolidated, national government is dangerous in a country as big as America! There are too many different types of people with too many different interests. Someone will go unrepresented.
SparkNotes : Julius caesar : Plot overview
Judiciary branch edit Brutus argues that the power given to the judiciary will: Extend legislative authority Increase jurisdiction of nurse the courts Diminish and destroy both the legislative and judiciary powers of the states. 10 he believes that their ability to declare what the powers of the legislature are will lead to extension of legislative power, especially because the supreme court can interpret the constitution according to its "spirit and reason" and will not be bound by its words. 10 like in Britain, this will allow them to "mold the government into almost any shape they please." 11 Also, their ability to deem the validity of state legislation overrides the state judiciaries and will eventually make them so "trifling and unimportant, as not. 10 he also thinks there should be more checks on the branch and judges should not only be removed on the basis of crime. He writes "no way is left to control them but with a high hand and an outstretched arm. 12 External links edit. On this day in 1787, an author writing under the pseudonym Brutus writes his first contribution to the anti-federalist Papers. These papers argued against the new Constitution, then being considered for ratification by the states.
With the population and geographical size of the United States, he warns that citizens will have very little acquaintance with those who may be chosen to under represent them; a great part of them will, probably, not know the characters of their own members, much less. 8 he also sees danger in giving Congress the power to modify the election of its own members. Brutus also questions the validity of the Three fifths Compromise and asks If slaves have no share in government. Why is the number of members in the assembly, to be increased on their account? 9 he sees this as one example of the corruption of the branch. The fact that each state, regardless of size, will have the same number of senators "is the only feature of any importance in the constitution of a confederated government" and is one of the few aspects of the legislature that Brutus approves of (16). He disagrees with the method of electing senators as well as the six-year term they are given as he believes spending that much time away from his constituents will make him less in touch with their interests (16). He advocates for a rotation in government to avoid the problem of men serving in the senate for life. He also objects to congress taking part in appointing officers and impeachment as it gives them both executive and judicial powers and he deems such blurring of the branches as dangerous (16).
in his view, Americans believe. 5, to alleviate this issue, a bill of rights that considers criminal rights, free elections, and freedom of press must be included. Legislative branch edit powers edit Brutus writes the congress possess far too much power, especially over the states. He prefers a true confederation, which would be: a number of independent states entering into a compact, for the conducting certain general concerns, in which they have a common interest, leaving the management of their internal and local affairs to their separate governments. 6 he believes the power to hold a standing army in peacetime as evil and highly dangerous to public liberty. 7 Congress unlimited power to collect revenue and to "borrow money on the credit of the United States as well as the necessary and Proper Clause, are highly dangerous to the states, and Brutus believes they will eventually be dissolved if the constitution is adopted. Representation edit Brutus argues that a free republic cannot exist in such a large territory as the United States. He uses the examples of the Greek and Roman republics that became tyrannical as their territory grew. 4 he states that a true free republic comes from the people, not representatives of the people.
All 16 of the essays were addressed to "the citizens of the State of New York". The true identity of Brutus universities is unknown, but modern scholarship has suggested both. Melancton Smith of, poughkeepsie 2 or, john Williams of, salem. 3, a computational analysis of the known writings of Smith suggests that either he or an associate was the author of the Brutus papers, though there are strong similarities between the works of Williams and Brutus. The pen name is in honor of either. Lucius Junius Brutus who led the overthrow of the last Roman King. Tarquinius Superbus or else, marcus Junius Brutus, who was one of, julius caesar 's assassins. Arguments against the constitution edit, the people's liberties edit, one of the main objections to the constitution argued by Brutus is the immense power of the federal government which requires the people to sacrifice their liberties. Anti-federalist writers, he argued that a bill of rights was necessary to protect the people from the government.
SparkNotes : Julius caesar : Brutus
Brutus was the pen name of an, antifederalist in a series of essays designed to encourage new Yorkers to reject the proposed. His series are considered among the best of those written to oppose adoption of the proposed constitution. 1, they paralleled and confronted The, federalist Papers during write the ratification fight over the constitution. Brutus published 16 essays in the. New-York journal, and weekly register from October, 1787, through April, 1788, beginning shortly before. The federalist started appearing in New York newspapers. The essays were widely reprinted and commented on throughout the American states.