Daniel Webster, US Senator from 1782 to 1852 stated:
I apprehend no danger to our country from a foreign foe ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. -- From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing. Make them intelligent, and they will be vigilant; give them the means of detecting the wrong, and they will apply the remedy.
Warnings like this came from the Founders and those, like predominantly written by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, demonstrated how important is was to keep the Constitution and its amendments safe from alteration or from being ignored by those elected officials given the power to run our government and keep America safe from domestic and foreign enemies of various sorts.
Names are seen and read who brought about what became the Constitution of the
United States, which formed our nation. But who were these men? Except for what they wrote, creating ideas on paper - just what were these men about?
The Founding Fathers were political leaders within the 13 colonies of America, colonies of Great Britain under the rule of King George of England. The Founders are men who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or participated in the American Revolution or the War of American Independence. According to the Wikipedia entry, Senator Warren G. Harding coined the first use of the phrase Founding Fathers at the 1916 Republican National Convention.
These men represented different careers and a representation of 18th century colonial leadership and almost all of them were well-educated, leaders of the community and active in politics.
Thomas Miffin and Nathaniel Gorham served as President of the Continental Congress. There were those who didn't have any congressional experience: Bassett, Blair, Brearly, Broom, Davie, Dayton, Alexander Martin, Luther Martin, Mason, McClurg, Paterson, Charles Pinckney, Strong, Washington, Patrick Henry, and Yates.
The Constitution was tested when it was drafted and finally ratified by the thirteen colonies that had become the 13 states of America. The Constitution has been tested ever since.
As Andrew Sullivan wrote at Times Online, UK:
As Andrew Sullivan wrote at Times Online, UK:
Our constitution has been tested before. It was tested when Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus in the civil war. It was tested when Franklin D Roosevelt interned thousands of Japanese-American citizens in camps during the Second World War. It was tested when Richard Nixon turned the presidency into a criminal conspiracy in Watergate. There was never any doubt that the war launched against the United States on September 11, 2001, would test it too. Wars do that, as Lincoln and Roosevelt demonstrate. No war by foreign enemies has implicated the American homeland as profoundly as this one.
In retrospect a large part of Bush's immediate response to 9/11 was understandable, even admirable. Facing a sudden attack, the constitution allows the president to take emergency measures to protect American citizens. He can act swiftly and legally to defend the country as commander-in-chief - and he did. If he hadn't and further attacks had occurred, he would have been pilloried. It is to his credit that no further attacks have taken place. ... Can democracies fight long - let alone open-ended - wars without ceasing to be democracies? Can we fight barbarians without becoming like them? ... The enemy knows no moral boundaries and no checks on its power. The West is defined by both. ... The answer was yes. ...
It might be interesting to note that the historian, Robert T. Handy, wrote that
No more than 10 percent - probably less - of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations.
And the Founding Fathers were Christians, but took precautions in keeping religion and state affairs separated, despite the symbolism that remains today. In effect, like freedom of choice, it was considered to be a gift of God, not to be taken away by any form of government, and which originated in the Book of Genesis, the tale of the first man and woman who were given the freedom of choice and suffered the consequence of making a bad choice.
The First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Therefore, the Constitution is a reflection of our founders' ideology of a secular government that protects the freedom to believe as well as the freedom to not believe. Nothing is mentioned of the wording that the political leftist uses in the phrase separation of church and state - although that is the gist of what it says and it clearly says that government shall not establish any religion or prevent those of a particular faith from exercising their beliefs.
Yet today we find a super small minority in the form of atheists telling the rest of us that we cannot exercise faith as Christians, call a Christmas tree just that, not publicly display the Ten Commandments, tell a student that cannot say a prayer before a meal in a school cafeteria, et cetera. This repression only concerns Christians when it comes to the political left - under their multiculturalism mantle they wear a different robe when it comes to another religion, like Islam. Certain public schools in America have actually had their students dress as Muslims in traditional garb and reading from a Qu'ran. Is this not promoting one religion while forbidding another? Students should be able to practice their religion in schools - but public, taxpayer-paid schools, should not advocate any particular religion or forbid a student to practice their beliefs.
We don't want a mob-ruled government, but we certainly do not want to be ruled by a minority either. Constitutional law must be adhered to and interpretation not a prerequisite for alteration.
Historian, Robert Middlekauf wrote:
...the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety.
George Washington, the Commanding General of the Continental Army and the first President of the United States of America wrote to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in the month of May, 1789:
[Every man] ought to be protected in worshiping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.
Clearly not the writings of an evangelical individual, and clearly not a premise for sociocrats to give cause to belittle our Constitution as something that must be upgraded or altered in any way.
Thomas Jefferson, a well-known name among the Founders, believed in logic and science when he wrote a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely on June 25th, 1819:
You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know.
John Adams, a Unitarian and another familiar name among the Founders, wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved - the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!
John Adams didn't believe in the doctrine of eternal damnation. Defending the Constitution, he wrote A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America [1787-1788]:
The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.
If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England.
Thomas Paine, hailed as a free thinker of that day and even today, authored several books and was a great influence upon those who founded America, wrote in The Age of Reason:
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek Church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity.
The Second Amendment of the Constitution of the United States reads:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This was just as important to the Framers and Founders as the First Amendment, because they knew that a government that would take away means of defense could easily take away the First Amendment.
Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to George Washington, June 19th, 1796:
One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
Whereas a modern dictator, Joseph Stalin, stated:
We don't let them have ideas. Why would we let them have guns?
Any state that tells a law abiding citizen that they cannot either possess firearms or use them in defense of life, liberty or property is a transgression against the Second Amendment to the United States of America and the Supreme Court should be telling them so. Recently legislation has been attempting to correct this situation, but President Obama and his administration is not in tune with what constitutional law mandates. There are 38 states of the Union who allow citizens to carry concealed firearms for protection with approved permits and some of those states are reducing the chance of a victim defending oneself against a criminal will be prosecuted for a crime as well. This is because people are finally seeing the truth that was a Cesare Beccaria quote used in Common Place written by Thomas Jefferson:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
A government up to no good would be the only government that fears its citizens from possessing firearms and using them in self defense. That is historical and statistical fact.
So called "gun control" laws today and still trying to be passed do nothing but disarm law abiding citizens, which in turn makes the criminal, who cares nothing about those laws, more bolder to seek victims using firearms that is supposed to be against the law. It is so simple, yet too many just don't get it. The state of Wisconsin would have been the 39th state to join in upholding the Second Amendment - the law of the United States of America - but disallowed it by reelecting the anti-gun, pro-taxation governor, Jim Doyle and his counterparts in the Wisconsin Assembly. I guess they were so busy hating George W. Bush that they didn't notice they were reelecting a corrupt, Big Government Sociocrat.[*]
Larry Elder wrote his concerns about firearms and the Second Amendment:
How often do Americans use guns for defensive purposes? We know that in 2003, 12,548 people died through non-suicide gun violence, including homicides, accidents and cases of undetermined intent... Criminologist and researcher Gary Kleck, using his own commissioned phone surveys and number extrapolation, estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns for defensive purposes each year. He further found that of those who had used guns defensively, one in six believed someone would have been dead if they had not resorted to their defensive use of firearms. That corresponds to approximately 400,000 of Kleck's estimated 2.5 million defensive gun uses. Kleck points out that if only one-tenth of the people were right about saving a life, the number of people saved annually by guns would still be at least 40,000... A gunned-down bleeding guy creates news. A man who spared his family by brandishing a handgun, well, that's just water cooler chat.
And there is part of the gist of America's problems today - the mainstream media. It has become such a powerful force under the auspices of the First Amendment that they have not retained their power of the press to be used to disseminate information, but instead to enforce their leftist indoctrination and propaganda from the left - and I am not talking about the commentary columns, for like rectums, everyone has their opinion. The main drive in today's journalism is not whole truth or passing knowledge, it is sensationalism and the publisher's personal political beliefs. The press has abused their rights of the First Amendment even to the point where they determine what political candidate qualifies to receive public notice, and thereby reducing that person's chance of the people taking notice to possibly vote for them. Thus we end up with final candidates like Barack Obama and John McCain - clearly not the men who will be able to stand fast in the action of true reformation and the return of a democratic republic of which it was originally designed. Another reason is that too many Americans do not take serious enough or exercise their right to vote by ignoring the primary elections. Also, it is too difficult, in certain states, to exercise their voting rights by choosing a non-Democrat or non-Republican candidate. This problem is too complex to write about further here, but I believe you can understand what I am pointing out.
The Third Amendment of the United States Constitution was introduced by James Madison ...
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
This was a concern at the time because British soldiers, under the rule of the King of England, would reside/bivouac in someone's house or their private property with or without their permission - and the residents were expected to sometimes even feed them. This, of course, would be unheard of today - but the law is there and has disallowed any such practice to ever occur in America, even in wartime. However, there was one time period where this amendment was disobeyed - during the Civil War when Union generals would take over a plantation and make it their headquarters.
Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Warrants must be processed judicially for a search as well as an arrest - this is a reasonable warrant. In general applicability, according to Wikipedia:
It does not guarantee a right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures conducted by private citizens or organizations.
Affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1855 in the Murray v. Hoboken Land case, the Fourth Amendment applies to criminal law, not civil law. In the 19th century the Interstate Commerce Act and Sherman Antitrust Act was passed to solve this argument. In recent history, as previously exercised during certain circumstances during time of war, a President of the United States can circumvent such rulings, as with FDR during World War II, probably the most well-known infraction of the Fourth Amendment would be the internment of Japanese Americans for the duration of World War II. A travesty and dark period of our history, to say the least.
Today argument still goes on concerning the detainment of terrorist captives during acts of war by Islamic fascists. However, the Fourth Amendment applies to all aspects of criminal law and thus the argument. In the case of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay, unless they were mistreated according to the Geneva Conventions, technically they are/were prisoners of war - whether declared war by Congress or not. It would have been clearer if Congress had performed its duty and declared officially the war against Islamic fascism, but they didn't.
Fifth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
An important right within the first ten amendments that comprise what is known as the Bill of Rights concerning jury trials and grand juries seeking indictment. The Fifth Amendment is merely a continuation of the Fourth Amendment, which includes the right to not witness against himself. Importantly, private property may not be taken away without compensation. This also concerns property rights, which land developers and unscrupulous elected officials have sometimes taken advantage of certain laws, like within the jurisdiction that has come to be part of the conservation advocacy, like protecting a certain owl or by plainly condemning property in order to "purchase" it for intended use - like a shopping mall. If the seller does not want to sell, the government should be protecting the property owner's right to not sell - not look for loopholes in the law(s) in order to aid the party that wants the property, for example. Property rights are one of the provisions in the Bill of Rights, and it has gradually disintegrated into what it is today. This is because of the justices of the Supreme Court - who do not exercise what it was meant for them to do, which is to resolve issues concerning the law as it was written. The Supreme Court has become not just a judiciary, but parts of the legislative body - legislating from the bench concerning cases they decide upon. Probably the most heated argument where the government steps in private lives when it concerns abortion after the Roe v. Wade case.
Double jeopardy is an important right of the Fifth Amendment in that a person cannot be tried for the same crime twice. Acquittals cannot be appealed by the prosecution to prevent double jeopardy infractions. However, a person serving in the military can be tried by both civilian and military courts, in some cases. For example, a murder is allegedly committed by a member of the armed forces or a member of the armed forces receives a citation for driving under the influence. The perpetrator of the crime must adhere to the law in which the act took place, and when that is over, also receive a military tribunal for military disciplinary actions. Sometimes this is merely a formality, as in the case if a military member is found guilty of murder in the state of Iowa, for example, or even in a foreign country. A military court sues for a verdict that the member is dishonorably discharged from the United States Army. In the case of the driving under the influence, if jail time is served and this causes the member to be absent without proper leave, this constitutes an action by Article 15 of a fine and/or reduction in rank. Some may consider this part of the double jeopardy clause, but in reality, one conviction is under one law and the other is primarily disciplinary action for transgressions committed while serving the Armed Forces, which that person represents.
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
A speedy and public trial is important to the rights of citizens. In the history of civilizations, people have languished for long periods and even died before ever being heard in a court, and if they did receive their day in court - they had no representation or no one who truly represented them. The Founders knew of this practice, and so deemed it important to include this in the Bill of Rights. Trial by jury is guaranteed, if requested by the defendant. However, this does not include petty offenses, which means those punishable by imprisonment of nor more than six months. In those cases, the judge can decide not to have a jury trial. However, you may find that even concerning a traffic violation, sometimes persons obtain a lawyer and request a trial by jury - and get it. This may tie up judiciary schedules, however, the jury may be needed if the citation is drunk driving, for example, where the person would lose their legal driving license.
The Seventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America:
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
And here we are again on the topic of the right of trial by jury in which a person who is accused of a traffic violation can actually request a trial by jury - under the Seventh Amendment. However, if a jury verdict is contrary to the law, a judge may nullify (set aside) the verdict and order a new trial with a new jury, and this is argued about in several cases. This ruling was upheld in the Siocum v. New York Insurance Co. case of 1913.
The Eighth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
In the court cases set concerning the Guantanamo Bay detainees, for example, this amendment was applied, in conjunction with the Geneva Accord Convention ruling concerning prisoners of war, which the "detainees" were technically so. Either way, torture of any kind is prohibited. That is the gist of the case against the GW Bush administration concerning G. Bay.
It is interesting to note that the Wikipedia entry reads under the background of this amendment:
This amendment was ratified as part of the United States Bill of Rights in 1791. It is almost identical to a provision in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, in which Parliament declared, "as their ancestors in like case have usually done...that excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Ninth Amendment of the United States Constitution:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
When the U.S. Constitution was sent to the states for ratification after being signed on September 17, 1787, Anti-Federalists argued that a Bill of Rights should be added. One argument of Federalists against the addition of a Bill of Rights, during the debates about ratification of the Constitution, was that a listing of rights could problematically enlarge the powers specified in Article One, Section 8 of the new Constitution, by implication. For example, in Federalist 84, Alexander Hamilton asked, "Why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Likewise, James Madison explained to Thomas Jefferson, "I conceive that in a certain degree ... the rights in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are granted" in Article One, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Anti-Federalists persisted in favor of a Bill of Rights during the ratification debates, but also were against ratification, and consequently several of the state ratification conventions gave their assent with accompanying resolutions proposing amendments to be added. In 1788, the Virginia Ratifying Convention attempted to solve the problem that Hamilton and the Federalists had identified by proposing a constitutional amendment specifying: That those clauses which declare that Congress shall not exercise certain powers be not interpreted in any manner whatsoever to extend the powers of Congress. But that they may be construed either as making exceptions to the specified powers where this shall be the case, or otherwise as inserted merely for greater caution.
James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were behind the inclusion of this amendment.
The First through Eighth Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the Ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government." The Ninth Amendment became part of the Constitution on December 15, 1791 upon ratification by three-fourths of the states.
The US judiciary has considered the Ninth Amendment an act to negate any expansion of governmental power, as well as limitation of the powers of government. For too long now, the expansion and intrusion of government concerning individual rights and liberties have been transgressed, and yet the American voter continues to vote for those who are in favor of this transgression in several ways and degrees of noncompliance.
Professor Laurence Tribe shares this view: "It is a common error, but an error nonetheless, to talk of 'ninth amendment rights.' The ninth amendment is not a source of rights as such; it is simply a rule about how to read the Constitution." Likewise, Justice Antonin Scalia has expressed the same view, in Troxel v. Granville (2000):
The Declaration of Independence...is not a legal prescription conferring powers upon the courts; and the Constitution's refusal to 'deny or disparage' other rights is far removed from affirming any one of them, and even farther removed from authorizing judges to identify what they might be, and to enforce the judges' list against laws duly enacted by the people.
I believe that this amendment is the most controversial because of the shortness and its language. However, the Federalist Papers was not only a discussion and argument concerning certain topics of the Constitution, but it was also a means to clarify more deeply for then and in the future. The Federalist Papers are an excellent guideline in determining decision concerning certain federal and state cases within the judiciary process. The Federalist Papers will be further discussed after the following entry of the Tenth Amendment, not the last amendment of the Constitution, but the last in the original Bill of Rights context.
The Tenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; ratified on December 15th, 1791, it reads:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This amendment was taken from an earlier written part of the Articles of Confederation, which was used during the American Revolution by the acting government at the time. As the Wikipedia entry states:
From time to time states and local governments have attempted to assert exemption from various federal regulations, especially in the areas of labor and environmental controls, using the Tenth Amendment as a basis for their claim. An often-repeated quote, from United States v. Darby, 312 U.S. 100, 124 (1941), reads as follows:
The amendment states but a truism that all is retained which has not been surrendered. There is nothing in the history of its adoption to suggest that it was more than declaratory of the relationship between the national and state governments as it had been established by the Constitution before the amendment or that its purpose was other than to allay fears that the new national government might seek to exercise powers not granted, and that the states might not be able to exercise fully their reserved powers.
One can see, as in the Ninth Amendment why this amendment has been argued about from time to time. Even the interpretation has been divided into two segments. One of them, also concerning the Ninth Amendment, is that the Constitution grants Congress the authority to do anything that is not forbidden in the first eight amendments.
In recent history the federal government has used their power to fund the states as a means to keep the states in tune with federal regulations and laws. Yet, this has not occurred concerning transgressions against the Second Amendment within the Bill of Rights of the American people. And by the way, the Second Amendment does not transgress against any American's right NOT to either own or carry a firearm. That is just as much their right as the other way around. And that concludes the brief overview of the Bill of Rights that is the first ten amendments to the seven articles of the Constitution of the United States.
I believe that people understand what it is saying but have difficulty applying it to use in arguments about what the government can and cannot do and just exactly what are the rights and liberties of the American citizen.
The Federalist Papers mentioned above was a series of 85 articles which was designed to advocate the ratification of the United States Constitution by the former colony governments turned state governments under the unification process. The primary person writing these papers was Alexander Hamilton (51 articles), along with James Madison who wrote 29 articles, and John Jay who wrote five. The articles were originally written under the pseudonym of Publius. This was derived from Roman consul Publius Valerius Publicola. Later, James Madison would become the 4th President of the United States, Alexander Hamilton would become the first Secretary of the Treasury, and John Jay would become the first Chief Justice of the United States.
Federalist #10, written by James Madison, would become an important and interesting article of the Federalist Papers. It discusses an advocacy for a republic, but not a pure democracy, which means it is important to read and understand this article that pertains to conditions and actions of the present growing government bureaucracy.
Another article considered important is Federalist No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, that provides the groundwork that later became the judicial review process. And under the political philosophy called Federalism, Federalist No. 51 provides the groundwork for that aspect of government. Also, Alexander Hamilton wrote Federalist No. 84, which is the opposition to a Bill of Rights, which as history has shown occurred anyway.
Federalist No. 10: James Madison warns and questions the methods of guarding against what he termed as factions, which would be groups of citizens with interests contrary to the rights of others or the interests of the whole community. For example, in today's discussed terminology, this would be the interaction within our government by special interest groups through lobbying in Congress. Mr. Madison presented the argument that a strong, large republic would be able to counter the dangers facing a smaller republic, for example, the individual state governments. Wikipedia entry:
It is believed that James Madison took ideas from Thomas Hobbes in regard to ideas of a strong controlling government. Opponents of the Constitution offered counterarguments to his position, which were substantially derived from the commentary of Montesquieu on this subject.
Actually, Federalist No. 10 is an extension or continuation of Federalist No. 9, written by Alexander Hamilton and entitled: The Same Subject Continued: The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection. One must remember that at the end of the revolution upon the colonial independence, there was fear that the same military that defended their rights could place a dictator among them in charge of the new nation - and they would be no better off than they were under the rule of the King of England.
James Madison saw that a direct democracy would be a threat to individual rights and stated that a representative democracy within a republic government would protect individual liberties against a ruling by a majority or any inequalities within a society. Mr. Madison wrote:
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.
Referring to historical democracies, like what was initiated and established in ancient Greece and later in the Roman Empire, he was referring to something that had occurred before. James Madison was influenced, along with anti-Federalists, by the writings of Montesquieu and the Scottish Enlightenment philosopher, David Hume. In the Wikipedia entry:
A republic, Madison writes, is different from a democracy because its government is placed in the hands of delegates, and as a result of this, it can be extended over a larger area. The idea is that in a large republic there will be more "fit characters" to choose from for each delegate. Also, the fact that each representative is chosen from a larger constituency should make the "vicious arts", a reference to rhetoric, of electioneering less effective. For instance, in a large republic a corrupt delegate would need to bribe many more people in order to win an election than in a small republic. Second, in a republic the delegates both filter and refine the many demands of the people so as to prevent the type of frivolous claims that impede purely democratic governments.
One united people-a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion.
Madison stated that the if the constituencies are too large, the representatives will be
...too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests.
James Madison stated that federalism would solve this problem. Anti-federalists stated that a republic the size of the combined states would fail, whereas individual states would not. Basically, this is an argument concerning centralization versus decentralization of government, which continues today, and had caused the American Civil War.
Gary Willis argued in his book, Explaining America, that the Madison essay does not protect the minorities or positive toward the common good of the people.
Federalist No.10 is the classic argument by some that the framers of the Constitution did not intend for American politics to become partisan, and indeed, this is the major problem with our government today, in which the political faction is more important than the general welfare of the nation in the eyes of those leadership within a particular political entity. Indeed, Federalist No. 10, as Justice Clarence Thomas presented, is a dissent against any ruling, such as the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act, which limits campaign finance.
The problem with too many people within Congress is that they are not well read in the studies of the Constitution and doubtfully have they read any or all of the articles within the Federalist Papers. One cannot expect a candidate for office to have a degree in political science, as well as total comprehension of civic law in all aspects, but at least have the desire to abide by those established laws and use the guidelines wisely as intended.
In addition, it can be seen, the importance of a President of the United States in choosing his Cabinet and administrative office chiefs wisely and in a nonpartisan fashion; not doing so can be clearly seen in his presidential administration as well as others in the past. Qualifications of administrative officials within the executive branch, as well as electing members to Congress, should not be based upon political affiliation by the President and the American voters.
The importance of reforming our government from its state of affairs is also a means of steering a truer course to better government and the return of rights and liberties lost in the various names of multiculturalism, diversity, political correctness and saving the spotted owl from presumed extinction. The American people can be the base of this reformation by quit asking the government to do what they can do in the private sector, listen to false promise of elected or want-to-be-elected officials of better security through more government, and finally, begin to self educate themselves to make better decision in voting and the ability to follow closely those they elect (or didn't vote for) who have the power to change the lives of its citizens.
It is time to make the twin traditional political entities the third parties until they can produce candidates that will enact the required reformation and protection of the democratic republic for which this nation was conceived. It wouldn't hurt to take a hard look at independent individuals advocating election as well.
In Closing: The saddest thing about our nation's government of executive, legislative and judicial branches of the United States of America is how many of those elected haven't a clue what the Constitution of the United States and its amendments is all about. Some out-rightly ignore it, replacing it with their agenda or that of some foreign fundamental ideology. It is We The People who are going to change things around and put us back to the point where America becomes once again a Jeffersonian Republic.
Religion of the Founding Fathers of America - List of the religious affiliation of those who signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States.
The US Constitution: Founding Fathers - Government archives.
Little-Known US Document Proclaims America's Government - Early America
Biographies of the Founding Fathers - Colonial Hall.
Founding Fathers of the United States - Wikipedia.
Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy - book by William J. Watkins, Jr., New York Palgrave McMillan, 2004.