In response to my latest Constitution Study Radio program, which centered on Article I, Section 5, a listener in Orlando, Florida sent me the following Email:
Doug,
Artilcle 1 section 5. You are talking about expelling a member with 2/3rds and how hard it is to get 2/3rds unless the behavior is so bad that many of the members own party would be against him.
You mentioned PARTY or PARTIES several times and I could[n't] find any political party or parties in it. I did see "members." Do you think it could be hard to get a majority and hard to get 2/3rds because you have 2 "teams" competing rather than "members" governing? Could this be why as you said the wheels of congress move so slow?
First of all, the wheels of Congress move slowly on purpose. The founders did not wish for anything to be done quickly, and without thought regarding the consequences. This is why it takes 2/3 0f Congress, often, to get the more serious things done, and why it takes 3/4 of the States to ratify changes to the Constitution (amendment).
As for parties, one must remember that in 1787, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, there weren't necessarily any political parties, or at least not in a manner as they are now. There were, however, opposing positions populated by birds of a feather. During the writing of the Constitution, the opposing sides were the Federalists, and the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists sought the formation of a federal government, deeming it necessary for the protection of the new union, for the Articles of Confederation proved to be too weak. The Anti-Federalists feared a federal government, pushing for the union to remain a loose confederation, which essentially would have made the states 13 individual democracies.
For those stammering about this nation being a Republic, it is in fact a republic . . . but at that point in history, the republic had not yet been formed. The states were, indeed, democracies at that point.
George Washington, as the first president of the United States under the government formed by the U.S. Constitution (there were previous presidents that had served very short terms under the Articles of Confederation before Washington became President), is listed as belonging to the Federalist Party, but in truth, Washington was a member of no party. He identified himself as a Federalist simply because he supported the idea of Federalism during the writing of the Constitution.
As the country grew, and the roots of opposing political thought began to emerge, even before the Constitutional Convention, two specific schools of political thought emerged. There have been folks that have inhabited varying degrees of these schools of thought, but the ideologies formed rather quickly, and are the basic foundation behind the two political parties. Hamilton, and his followers, desired a more centralized federal government that had enough power to "take care" of the people, and provide for the "common good," through the law of man. They believed in the concept of Rousseau's General Will, and the benevolence of government. Most of those folks eventually populated the Federalist Party, and in today's world would be known as Democrats.
Jefferson and Madison had their own following, and these folks believed in the rule of law, which in the strictist sense meant following the original intent of the Law of the Land, or the U.S. Constitution. They believed the rule of law was derived from Natural Law, or God's Law, and that government should be limited in its powers and scope to the authorities necessary for it to function. In the case of the Federal Government, this meant adhering to the authorities granted to it by the Constitution, which had to do with the union. No powers beyond those granted by the States could be used by the Federal Government without those authorities being granted to the Federal Government by State ratification, via the amendment process. I would like to say that in today's world those folks would be known as the Republican Party, but in reality, the Tea Party more closely fits in with who those original patriots were. The goal of the Tea Party is to get the GOP back to its Constitutional platform.
So, to answer the Emailer's question, he is right. During the writing of the Constitution there were no political parties. But there were these two schools of political ideas. Big Government versus Small Government was with us in the very beginning, and the Founding Fathers knew it would be inevitable that these two opposing viewpoints would form into parties. So though the Constitution was written in a manner that the statesmen would be "members" of their offices, and that they would be voted in on personal merit, rather than party affiliation, the Founders understood that the latter would come into play eventually.
It was inevitable.
As the parties began forming, largely as a result of the rivalry between Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson, based on the ideas of the two opposing political viewpoints, John Adams saw the danger behind what the parties were becoming, and proclaimed, "There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other."
On the same token, he understood the importance of political debate, and that a position must be taken: "In politics the middle way is none at all."
Whether you like the two-party system, or not, its existence is with us because of the two opposing schools of thought. Either you desire an expansive government that seeks more control over the people, or a limited one that promotes individuality, personal responsibility, and self-reliance. Sure, there are varying degrees of thought on these topics too, but in the end, everyone will choose one or the other.
In my Constitution Study Radio program, it is these two opposing viewpoints I refer to when I mention parties.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
For those stammering about this nation being a Republic, it is in fact a republic . . . but at that point in history, the republic had not yet been formed. The states were, indeed, democracies at that point.
George Washington, as the first president of the United States under the government formed by the U.S. Constitution (there were previous presidents that had served very short terms under the Articles of Confederation before Washington became President), is listed as belonging to the Federalist Party, but in truth, Washington was a member of no party. He identified himself as a Federalist simply because he supported the idea of Federalism during the writing of the Constitution.
As the country grew, and the roots of opposing political thought began to emerge, even before the Constitutional Convention, two specific schools of political thought emerged. There have been folks that have inhabited varying degrees of these schools of thought, but the ideologies formed rather quickly, and are the basic foundation behind the two political parties. Hamilton, and his followers, desired a more centralized federal government that had enough power to "take care" of the people, and provide for the "common good," through the law of man. They believed in the concept of Rousseau's General Will, and the benevolence of government. Most of those folks eventually populated the Federalist Party, and in today's world would be known as Democrats.
Jefferson and Madison had their own following, and these folks believed in the rule of law, which in the strictist sense meant following the original intent of the Law of the Land, or the U.S. Constitution. They believed the rule of law was derived from Natural Law, or God's Law, and that government should be limited in its powers and scope to the authorities necessary for it to function. In the case of the Federal Government, this meant adhering to the authorities granted to it by the Constitution, which had to do with the union. No powers beyond those granted by the States could be used by the Federal Government without those authorities being granted to the Federal Government by State ratification, via the amendment process. I would like to say that in today's world those folks would be known as the Republican Party, but in reality, the Tea Party more closely fits in with who those original patriots were. The goal of the Tea Party is to get the GOP back to its Constitutional platform.
So, to answer the Emailer's question, he is right. During the writing of the Constitution there were no political parties. But there were these two schools of political ideas. Big Government versus Small Government was with us in the very beginning, and the Founding Fathers knew it would be inevitable that these two opposing viewpoints would form into parties. So though the Constitution was written in a manner that the statesmen would be "members" of their offices, and that they would be voted in on personal merit, rather than party affiliation, the Founders understood that the latter would come into play eventually.
It was inevitable.
As the parties began forming, largely as a result of the rivalry between Adams, Hamilton and Jefferson, based on the ideas of the two opposing political viewpoints, John Adams saw the danger behind what the parties were becoming, and proclaimed, "There is nothing I dread so much as a division of the Republic into two great parties, each arranged under its leader and converting measures in opposition to each other."
On the same token, he understood the importance of political debate, and that a position must be taken: "In politics the middle way is none at all."
Whether you like the two-party system, or not, its existence is with us because of the two opposing schools of thought. Either you desire an expansive government that seeks more control over the people, or a limited one that promotes individuality, personal responsibility, and self-reliance. Sure, there are varying degrees of thought on these topics too, but in the end, everyone will choose one or the other.
In my Constitution Study Radio program, it is these two opposing viewpoints I refer to when I mention parties.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
1 comment:
This is a fine synopsis of the Parties vs. Members issue. Well done!
Post a Comment