Claimants of the Constitution: A Conclusion

The past few months, these political articles have used the Federalist Papers to examine Neil Gorsuch's Originalism and compared the parties of the original Constitutional questions with their claimants: the Republicans and Democrats. Though these issues are over two hundred years old, hopefully one can recognize their relevance today, for as long as the United States stands among the nations of the earth, its citizens will repeat these debates. This is the second to last article regarding the Federalist Papers, with a final resolution next week.

Today's topic encompasses and expands the recent articles, religion, taxation, and national defense. In these prior two accounts, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist debated the specific purposes of a national government, and the tools to ensure its success. Central to the debate between these two factions was the question of supremacy. Should the states or the national government rule supreme? The failures of the Articles of Confederation led to two opposing opinions. The Anti-Federalists searched for a solution to empower the States to solve the problems of instability, while the Federalists sought to construct a singular force, to manage all those subservient to it. With the ratification of the Constitution, the Federalist vision, the United States, became such a creation, ruling over the states who composed it.

Alexander Hamilton envisioned this outcome. In Federalist 27 he says “Various reasons have been suggested, in ... these papers ... that the general government will be better administered than the particular governments; ... that the extension of the spheres of election will present a greater option … that through the medium of the State legislatures ... that [the Senate] will generally be composed with peculiar care and judgment; … that they will be less apt to be tainted by the spirit of faction, and ... out of the reach of those occasional ill-humors ... which, in smaller societies, frequently contaminate the public councils … and terminate in general distress, dissatisfaction, and disgust.”

The general government will be better administered than the particular governments. Hamilton's words. In this example, the general government is the United States, while the particular governments are the states. He presumes the general government will be superior, because its members will be collected from a nationwide society, with its elevated officials chosen by their peers in the states. The preeminent statesmen will be elected by their compatriots to serve at the national level. The senators will be chosen by the elected officials in each state government (until the 17th Amendment in 1913), and because of the method of election, these men will be above petty biases.

Unfortunately, the history of the United States exposes Hamilton's naivete, or his incredible ability for self-deception. Throughout the history of the country, (and not just the last decade) citizens have watched as the small-minded, the prejudiced, the illiberal, and the provincial have held the highest offices of the land, whether Representative, Senator, Supreme Court Justice, or President. These regrettable results certainly aren't confined to elections after 1788. Why did Hamilton believe the Constitution would generate a different result? Because, since its inception, the United States has succeeded compared its competition.

In spite of the argument's deficiencies, Hamilton was correct to claim the United States would be (and is) broader in belief than any singular state. The narrow-mindedness of any particular state is balanced by a different intolerance of another state. Hamilton claimed Senators would not be tainted by faction, a half truth. Political parties are not factions, but composed of many interested parties. An entire State in 1800 may have been devoted to a singular faction, yet the expanse of the Nation, both in area and population have always limited the reach of any particular faction (though modern communication has expanded their range). Citizens are born in a specific town, a state, and a region. Each of these possess their own internal interests, which are in conflict with the interests of other towns, states, and regions. Political factions have difficulty forming across imaginary lines, because they are birthed by individuals, focused on their own local interest. Hamilton trusted that the vastness of the future United States would preclude any single faction from dominating the nation. It would be, he thought, impossible for a majority of the population to share an interest detrimental to the health of the whole. Senators might be factionalized, yet never would a majority of Senators belong to a single faction (and as unrivaled statesmen would still place the national interest ahead of the provincial).

Hamilton trusted the national government would exercise superior judgment, because no faction would rule. He hoped future citizens would fix their gaze upon the United States instead of their own state. He wrote, “I will ... hazard an observation … the more the operations of the national authority are intermingled in the ordinary exercise of government, the more the citizens are accustomed to meet with it … the more it is familiarized to their sight and to their feelings … the greater will be the probability that it will conciliate the respect and attachment of the community.” Over time, Hamilton assumed, as the national government developed, the citizens of the United States would be likely to interact with it, observe its superior administration, and as a result, develop an attachment to it in preference to their own states.

Again, this seems ridiculous. Ironically, it is because Hamilton either forgot or misunderstood the influence of faction. As he knew, a State can be ruled by a singular faction, and so most States are controlled by one party or another. In such a state, the ruling party can pass laws unopposed, and whether the laws are good or bad, the State government at least appears efficient to its citizens. The general government is composed of many opposing interests, and the procedures required to institute a law necessitate a super majority of approval, leading often to failure. Today, roughly ten percent of voters approve of Congress, but a majority of voters approve of their own Senators. Unsurprisingly, citizens trust their own senators, but not those who oppose them. It's no surprise voters disapprove of the apparent inefficiency national government. Yet, part Hamilton's statement is true. Voters no longer observe the actions of their representatives in the State capitals as they used to. Instead, political opinion is focused on the national level, with news stations describing the exploits of the President, the Senate, the House, and the Supreme Court. Most voters know the names of their national officals than their state offices. Presumably, voters believe national officials wield extensive power to alter the status of the United States. This isn't a complete condemnation, Hamilton would have preferred it.

The question remains, which political party's ideology most closely aligns with the belief in a strong central government, which supersedes the states in authority. This is really two parts. The Democratic party is that which supports an energetic government, while Republicans only seem to appreciate this aspect as directly relates to military force. Yet, which party believes the national wields the final authority is a matter of politics. When Democrats held the White House, they complained of the Republican led states which instituted stronger anti-abortion laws, and resisted laws legalizing same sex marriage. Now that the Democrats are on the outside looking in, they are fighting to protect legal marijuana, sanctuary cities, and environmental regulation. The party out of power always retreats into their political strongholds to refine their policies. Fortunately, while the national government maintains its position as final arbiter, and has many tools to implement its decisions, the system is complex enough to allow expansive leeway for the states to experiment, as long as they recognize their secondary status.

It didn't have to be this way. Hamilton and Madison could have failed to convince their compatriots, but their arguments contained something which swayed the people (note: the Constitution was approved by special committees, elected for this singular purpose, not by a popular vote - “the people” is a figure of speech). But because of their argument and vision, the United States reigns supreme over its components.

Recent:

Originalism and the Federalist Papers

Comments