The Federalist Party and shaping of early American political philosophy

Partisan Politics

At the time the U.S. Constitution was ratified, the new America of the 19th century saw its indigenes with varied political opinions. Those in favor of a powerful central government and therefore, a restraint of the powers the states possessed were part of the Federalist Party; those with the belief that interpretation should be given to the Constitution in order to reduce the powers the national government wields, which would further empower the states, became part of the Republican PartyTherefore, The Federalists adopted a nationalistic opinion; the Republicans, although they would not refute the efficiency of the central government, held the opinion that certain rights ought to be kept for the states. Thus, this essay will explore the aforementioned idea (Writer Thoughts). It will examine how the Federalist philosophy and ideas shaped modern American Society.

Supporters of the Constitution

The proposed American Constitution's advocates labeled themselves as "Federalists." This adopted name indicated a dedication to a decentralized and loose governmental system. "Federalism," in several respects, refers to a powerful central government. Federalists believed a Constitution was necessary for safeguarding the independence and liberty produced by the American Revolution (Federalists). Though they had certainly developed a novel political philosophy, Federalists believed their greatest role was, defending social benefits brought about by the Revolution. According to a prominent Federalist leader, James Madison, the U.S. Constitution aimed at becoming a Republican cure for the illnesses most likely to occur in the Republican government.

Federalists' cause was assisted by not only a carefully selected name, but a new and inventive political plan. A number of the best leaders of that age, who were exposed to maximum national work, were, indeed, Federalists. For instance, George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, the only 2 celebrities of that age, recognized across America, were in favor of the Constitution. Aside from the support of these two imposing personalities, Federalists were efficient, had ample funds, and were exceedingly careful in their use of mass media (Federalists). A majority of newspapers supported their political plan, publishing pamphlets and articles for explaining why citizens need to accept and support the Constitution.

Impact during the 19th Century

The dual federalism concept states that: state and national governments were equals, each having their own unique and independent spheres of influence. In spite of the implied powers doctrine, first stated in the McCulloch v. Maryland case, the national/federal government had limited authority to exercise Constitutional powers. Scant collaboration existed between state and national governments, and sporadic tensions arose over the union's nature and the state sovereignty and nullification doctrine. The debate on state rights and the union's nature -- whether the U.S. Constitution succeeded in creating a union of sovereign American states or an inseparable one -was a leading question in the nation's Civil War. Congress, in the year 1791, established the First Bank of the United States at Alexander Hamilton's urging. The Federalists were of the view that any bank with bills whose currency is in all parts of the states would be a lot more convenient than one whose currency is only limited to one state (MacDonald, 1905 page 71). The Central Bank, in the year 1816, was chartered newly as the Second Bank of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court, in the year 1819 upheld the constitutional authority of the Congress in chartering this Bank in the McCulloch v. Maryland case under the implied powers doctrine and the proper and necessary clause of the Constitution's first article. John Marshall, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, in writing its unanimous verdict in favor of the Congress' constitutional power of national bank establishment, agreed that the U.S. national governmental powers were restricted to expressed powers (i.e., those listed within the Constitution), but also agreed that the First Article authorized the Congress (or national government) to pass proper and necessary laws for carrying out the duties and powers listed in the Constitution (Boyd, 1997). Therefore, national bank establishment, while not an openly Constitution-sanctioned power, was still an appropriate Congressional activity, coming under the implied powers doctrine, which allowed the U.S. national government a chance to execute express powers, authority, or duties, like tax levying and collection, borrowing funds, and issuing currency. In 1798, a Federalist-regulated U.S. Congress passed its Sedition and Alien Acts for silencing the Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican criticizers of the nation's undeclared war against France. As a response, Virginian and Kentuckian Democratic-Republican-regulated legislatures passed resolutions in support of the state-focused federalism concept, nullifying the two Acts as being unconstitutional. The nullification doctrine maintained that all states were authorized to suspend, within their own boundaries, the implementation or working of any national/federal law considered unconstitutional by them. The Sedition and Alien Acts contributed greatly to the Federalist Party's defeat, and were annulled before the U.S. Supreme Court had a chance to hear them challenged. The Alien Act, so to speak, can be summed up very easily. According to the Act, it shall be legal for the United States President at any given time, that falls within the Act's continuance itself, to give an order for everyone of such aliens, as he shall deem dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, to move out of the territories within the United States (MacDonald, 1905 page 142). It equally states that every captain of a ship is expected to give a report of every one of the aliens found aboard the ship. The crime known as treason is handled by the Sedition Act.

Federalism Seen in 20th Century- Today

In the sixties, concerns were voiced with regard to intergovernmental grant structure, with particular emphasis on duplication, overlap, confusion, and fragmentation. Such concerns led to efforts by the administrations of Gerald Ford and Richard Nixon to redirect federal power relations. The chief tools of these Administrations were sharing of revenues and federal assistance initiatives' consolidation into 6 exclusive revenue sharing initiatives. The aim was: shifting funds, responsibility, and authority to local and state governments in a bid to manage intergovernmental grant structure more effectively (Boyd, 1997). Although it wasn't entirely successful, Nixon's regime managed to recast the discussion on various governmental levels' roles. In many instances, some of which were narrowly decided, the U.S. Supreme Court has offered sufficient evidence of the fact that the judicial restraint era might be over when it comes to federalism, as well as federal-state power relationships. In the 1985 Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority case, the Court announced that states need to redress using congressional regulation via the legislative/political process, rather than the judiciary. A number of recent cases, like the New York v. United States, Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, and United States v. Lopez, have witnessed the Court adopting an increasingly activist role, restricting federal government powers, and narrowing its own interpretation of commerce clause to support state rights. For instance, in the 1992 New York v. United States case, the Court set about declaring unconstitutional 1985 Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act provisions.

Conclusion

The U.S. Constitution, as of this day, is also driven by the federalism concept when it comes to constructing the nation's government. In the system of federalism, smaller political elements (e.g., localities, cities, counties, and states) integrate in a bigger political entity (Constitution of the United States). The aim of federalism is, protecting liberties of citizens within these small political units through providing them considerable freedom to govern themselves. Therefore, as has been addressed in this paper, actions of Federalists have indeed influenced the twenty-first century U.S. government.

Part 2:

The faction of strict constructionists, headed by one of the founding fathers -- Thomas Jefferson -- argued that a government that governs least is best. This faction wished for a small national/federal government, with a majority of power left to states and citizens of the nation (Strict Constructionism vs. Broad Constructionism). Therefore, they maintained that the Congress ought to be only authorized to exert the express powers cited specifically within the Constitution, with just a few of these, as well as implied powers, being recognized as legitimate. Thomas Jefferson wished to ensure the American government would only charge few, if any, taxes, and mostly leave citizens free to pursue personal aims, free from interference by the government. He believed only an exceedingly strict interpretation of the Constitution's "Necessary and Proper Clause" would stop the Congress from according itself increasingly unwarranted power over the lives of citizens. Thus, ultimately, the Republicans and Thomas Jefferson believed in state rights over those of a powerful government at the center (Writer Thoughts). Were the federal government to be accorded apparently unlimited powers, there would not be any difference between them and the British monarchs, which was what America wished to avoid. Although it was necessary to have a national-level government, Jefferson held a strong belief that its powers must be limited, to ensure it doesn't contradict state rights.

The Federalists and Hamilton contended that one must not make a loose interpretation of the Constitution (Writer Thoughts). Governmental plans, under the Articles of Confederation, couldn't effectively protect citizens' individual liberties, as it didn't act directly on citizens, and wasn't empowered to impose the laws it passed. One among the greatest problems arising from these Articles was: No means existed to urge states to unite. This resulted in competition among states over areas such as commerce, land, and public debt repayment. With time, this naturally gave rise to more competition, as well as an inability of providing for common defense. Moreover, each state would aspire to enhance its respective military strength, for defense against invasions by neighbors, and foreign invasions. This would spark more wars, as well as suppress civil liberties through military autocracy (The Federalist Papers (1787-1789)). A confederate republic governmental form is best for the U.S., as it affords popular government benefits, in central government form, without diminishing compactness, in state governmental form, retaining a majority of their sovereignty. Political parties of the 1790s possessed different ideals as compared to modern-day Republicans and Democrats. Different eras necessitate different ideals.