Balancing Federal Power: Madison’s Foresight

As the American Revolution ended, the newly established sovereign union began working towards a new form of government in which the tyranny of England King and George the III could be avoided. Unjust military supervision, taxation and other actions on behalf of the English Parliament were primary reasons that Americans sought a weak and limited government at first via the Articles of Confederation. However, the limited powers of the federal government according to this document prompted the original framers to establish a new paradigm in which a relative balance of power could be achieved without alienating states’ and individual rights. The ultimate question remained as to how much power the government should have and what sorts of implications it would have on future generations of individuals. Ultimately, a large federal body was accepted in order to protect individuals and states while simultaneously fostering an ecosystem of flexibility should the right circumstances agree with the general interest of the American people.

The need for a large federal government was rationalized and strongly supported by James Madison. Within The Federalist Papers, Madison explained that the role of government was not limited to just protecting the citizens from tyranny; instead, citizens would have to be protected as well due to the fact that “the latent causes of faction are sown into the nature of man” (“Federalist #10”). That is, by default, men would create interest groups and attempt to take authority over minorities. Madison’s defense was that rather than avoiding this inevitable phenomenon, government should be focusing on “controlling its effects” in regard to the general public (Federalist #10). Incidentally, this could only be leveraged with a federal government with enough authority to assert control and stop any undue influence from permeating into the policy-making procedure. Indeed, this context of citizens against one another also applied to the relationships among the states and the federal government.

A large federal government would protect and give appropriate power to smaller states as well. While the anti-federalists wanted a government that served the interest of wealthy businessmen, Madison argued that this was not the inherent role of government. Rather, Madison strongly argued that “justice is the end of government,” not economic interests for a select few (Federalist #51). In order to pursue this paradigm of justice among individuals and states, the federal government needed to control its own people as well as the ruling bodies within the union. Just as Delaware is a smaller state than New York, there had to be an ecosystem in which legislation would not unfairly favor one state because of population or land mass. In not having the adequate protection of the government, there would be nothing to stop situations in which “the weaker is not secured against the violence of the stronger” (Federalist #51). This is precisely why the federal government was ratified as a strong entity in which the inhabitants were precisely controlled while given freedom to protest and pursue social change simultaneously.

To exemplify, the original Articles of Confederation were too weak and therefore did not secure the liberties that a federal government should have granted. While it is reasonable to assume that the colonists were weary of tyranny, the Articles were still too weak and earned a legacy of being illegitimate. The articles gave the federal government the power to control foreign relations, debt and war (AOC).While these powers are important in their own right, they did not control the states enough. Indeed, the federal government lacked the power to raise money, draft soldiers and even promote general enforcement. This resulted in a weak and decentralized government body in which commerce, land and citizens were in danger of foreign invaders. It is because of these downfalls in governance that the states finally adopted a centralized and unified body of rule.

The newly ratified constitution gave the states enough powers to govern while providing an ecosystem of promoting justice and fair interest. While it may be perceived as a rigid and static body of rule, the Constitution withheld the test of future generations and lived up to its legacy of justice. For example, when the roles of blacks changed dramatically, previous dogmas of social superiority changed to accommodate new social attitudes of freedom. For example, legislation like Article XV of the Amendments were able to finally support the notion that “the rights of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude” (USC, A-15). This assertion of federal power epitomized the fact that the federal government was versatile, had authority over states and could withstand social change. Just as Madison predicted years earlier, groups like white supremacists were limited in their power as “any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union” with a large federal government (Federalist #10). Clearly, having this flexibility and protection over minorities proved to be a huge advantage in promoting justice.

While some have argued that a large bureaucracy like our government would be inefficient, this has not stopped it from being effective and fair. In fact, framers like Madison had enough foresight to know that governments would have to be large enough to protect its citizens from each other as well as from ruling bodies like states. This way, the pernicious nature of man would be alleviated while fostering social change. On a macro level, states would have the power to have a voice even if they did not have the same populations as larger states. Clearly, this larger federal body was much more effective because the Articles of Confederation failed so miserably. A federal government with limited powers was not only ineffective but posed the states to potential threats from interstate as well as foreign threats. Luckily, Madison’s notions of a strong body of governance prevailed and withstood the challenge of remaining relevant under diverse circumstances throughout history.

Works Cited

Madison, James. "The Federalist No. 10." Constitution. United States Government, 22 Nov. 1787. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm.

Madison, James. "The Federalist No. 51." Constitution. United States Government, 6 Feb. 1788. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm.

United States Government. "Amendments to the Constitution." Constitution. United States Government, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 25 Sept. 2011. http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/Amend.html.