Federalist and anti-federalist perspectives on presidential and congressional power development

Federalist and Anti-Federalist Review

Federalist papers were written in support of the ratification of the U.S. constitution while anti-federalists were written in opposition of the same. The most important papers in federalist series were paper 10 and 5 both written by James Madison on the subject of power distribution within the federation. Anti-federalist paper 3 was written under the pseudonym Brutus and meant to oppose the arguments raised by Madison on power distribution. Keeping in mind these papers and the arguments made in the same, we might ask ourselves how these authors will review the modern government and its power distribution. If we look at Federalist paper 10 and the arguments rose in the same, we might connect it closely to cases of internal insurgence that can arise in large republic because of factions or interest groups. Let us see if this applies to our country today. Factions are present in any republic, large or small but Madison believes that a large republic is more suitable for tackling these groups and their anti-social activities than a small republic:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

A rule that is largely selected by people of a republic is more in control of the faction-related insurgencies than what he calls "pure democracy." Keeping in mind this, we can say that it applies to our country today where it has become easier to handle faction-related issues than we would have been able to do had the country been smaller. We can prove this by referring to smaller nations around the world which are mostly facing serious faction-related troubles and are totally in a mess because of the size of republic. However the U.S. is no stranger to trouble it but has mostly been able to effectively handle those troubles. For example we have had serious terrorist related problems and they are very much factional in nature because they represent the interests of one group over another. Madison would have been proud of him for predicting the influence of large republic against factional problems. Similarly the author of anti-federalist paper 3 would have found its own logic rather misguided because it speaks against large republic and method of power distribution in such republics.

"As to any nation attacking a number of confederated independent republics… it is not to be expected, more especially as the wealth of the empire is there universally diffused, and will not be collected into any one overgrown, luxurious and effeminate capital to become a lure to the enterprising ambitious. That extensive empire is a misfortune to be deprecated will not now be disputed. The balance of power has long engaged the attention of the entire European world, in order to avoid the horrid evils of a general government. The same government pervading a vast extent of territory terrifies the minds of individuals into meanness and submission."

On the issue of factions thus, we can say that Federalist Madison would approve of the government of the U.S. today because it has proved that large republics can effectively control faction-related trouble. However on the issue of division of power in the three bodies of government Madison must not be very happy or approving because while Madison wanted complete separation of the three bodies so each would work independently, that is not true in the real sense in American government today where legislative and executive bodies are dependent on each other and also keep a check on each other while judiciary is reasonably independent without being completely separate. Madison however knew very well that complete separation was not possible but he did want people appointed to each body coming in with public vote instead of the opinion or vote of another bodies.

The U.S. constitution had created a system of checks and balances that helps each body perform effectively without becoming too empowering or powerful. Madison would approve of this system of check and balances if we could somehow get rid of the provisions that give executive body exercise some influence on appointments made to the Senate and House of Representatives. Similarly Madison would have approved if there had been little or no influence of legislative body on either the executive or the judiciary but a system however complex has been put in place to minimize abuse of power.

Brutus however did not agree with the system of government that U.S. constitution had proposed. More accurately he was opposed to the system of choosing representatives according to the number of inhabitants in a particular state. He connected this system with ownership of property that gave the owners greater representation in the government:

"According to the common course of human affairs, the natural aristocracy of the country will be elected. Wealth always creates influence, and this is generally much increased by large family connections: this class in society will forever have a great number of dependents; besides, they will always favour each other -- it is their interest to combine -- they will therefore constantly unite their efforts to procure men of their own rank to be elected -- they will concenter all their force in every part of the state into one point, and by acting together, will most generally carry their election. It is probable, that but few of the merchants, and the most opulent and ambitious, will have a representation from their body -- few of them are characters sufficiently conspicuous to attract the notice of the electors of the state in so limited a representation."