The constitution is sheer genius in my opinion, almost divine. However, there is one core concept of the constitution that is wrong: it’s wrong due to the fact it’s based on concepts and practices of capitalism. The concept that I’m arguing against is “ambition counteracting ambition” or “evil counteracting evil”, this concept is absurd, it’s like saying a lion guard another lion, or gravity counteracting gravity.
The truth of the matter is the one overwhelms the other, or even worse they both will combine and cause almost unending havoc. Now I’m not arguing against the reasoning of this concept, when James Madison said, “Men aren’t angels” I perfectly agreed but we aren’t demons either. What I’m arguing is the absurdity and the usage of this concept, since the people are not really represented.
James Madison being one of the “Founding Fathers ” succeeded in establishing the state of America and its society by working out the key principles implemented in the Constitution. That is why he was known as “Father of the Constitution”. In American society, people believe that the point of somebody’s ambitions can make an impact on his future life.
It is concerned without the exclusion of the fact that many negative aspects are involved in terms of this approach to negatively illustrate the relationships between people in power and those being subordinate to this power. In this paper, the points about James Madison’s concepts are concerned with one of John Locke’s works in order to support the vision of the Constitution on the facts relevant to power in relationships between its branches. “The Second Treatise” by J. Locke is a manifestation of power that is present in nature and can be elaborated in society. This work explains the ways of people’s reorganization into civil society with strict glimpses on the rights which individuals have when meeting the repressions in it. One of the concepts being popular in the epoch of Enlightenment is outlined by the author. It is a “social contract theory”.
In other words, the author states several points as of the men and power. His “state of nature” is a unity of people equal in rights, but, as the author continues, each of the individuals can use the power coordinated by natural law.
This is because “natural law is universal and knows no boundaries of state or country when being carried out.” (Locke 11) Another point of Locke’s work touches upon the fact that the society appeared after making some agreements between people intending the political power emergence. The role of state the author comprises in the work of governments, “for in governments, the laws regulate the right of property, and the possession of land is determined by positive constitutions.” (Locke 4) Though, “the natural liberty” of an individual is argued in the work so that to find out the truth in evaluating the concept of freedom in the state supported by the Constitution in our case.
Looking at the theories which were dominating in the civilized world of the seventeenth till nineteenth centuries historians distinguish a powerful flow of thoughts provided by outstanding people of that epoch, such as John Locke, as was mentioned above, Niccole Machiavelli, Adam Smith, and other philosophers who had greatly evaluated main ideas regarding the state formation and the concept of power in it. The Founding Fathers applied various key points in the treatises of contemporary and previous scientists. They worked out the role of the power separation, in particular. How did it impact the figures in weight of early America? What was the result of their finding outs?
James Madison was impressed and interested in the separation of power with emphasis on the wholeness of social regulations. One point, though, stays unclear when Madison applied to “great compromises” in regulations between three main parts of the power. Each of the spheres of influence should participate in mutual checking out according to Federalist Papers so that to prevent inactivity in corridors of power. In support of this idea, it was considered that if individuals gather to make a contribution to the things of personal needs then a total good is within easy reach in their communities.
Where is the extent of this very compromise observed in everyday life? When talking of relationships between, for instance, barber and his client wanting to be hair-cut it is necessary to adhere to the public health regulations in using the instruments and having the license given preliminarily to the barber by the government. This situation surely shows the fact of compromise in relationships within individuals and state authority. John Locke with regards to above-mentioned approach wrote the following statement:
Every man is born with a double right: first, a right of freedom to his person, which no other man has a power over, but the free disposal of it lies in himself; secondly, a right, before any other man, to inherit with his brethren his father’s goods. (Locke 107)
This common model of relationships also omits the fact of considered surveillance of the rest who belong to the lower layers of the society. Here the middle class is sure to be preferred. Why is the population of a definite country need equality in rights and doings adhered to the law? As Locke pointed out in his “Treatise”, “where law ends, begins tyranny” (Locke 135), but it calls a sort of grave contradiction to this approach because even now in one-man rule countries the laws are even more severe and effective than in present-day democratic countries and still it does regulate the political climate in a country.
In other words, tyranny not always falls into the hands of one man. There is a group of others to support their leader’s ideas. Still, the controversy appears to the idea above. Since the moment when disputes about the democratic trends amongst civilians reached the highest point James Madison underlined in one contemporary newspaper of the eighteenth century the logical explanation of how evil-versus-evil model giving several points as for the concept of officials in the state:
From this view of the subject, it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. (Vile 559)
Here I can clearly figure out the theme of Machiavelli’s treatise “The Prince” where the features of indifference of the ruler should be made out and his role is too heightened to pay simple attention on those being subordinates to him. In fact, it is an autocratic model. Turning to Madison he thought that in theory of political frameworks there should not be “perfect equality in their political rights” (Vile 559), because it will lead to oversimplification of empowerment maintained by the authority and, as a result, lessens the role of the bodies of government.
In contrast, some peoples of Middle East, namely, Kuwait, Bahrain or United Arab Emirates have many of rights and material amenities and, thus, are equalized with regards to one another. Moreover, in these countries autocratic or even theocratic, like in Saudi Arabia, regimes are implemented without any harms for the economies and well-being of people on the whole.
Still let us turn to the times of the Founding Fathers. Great curiosity inspires the question of Thomas Jefferson’s implication to antifederalists. It will be remembered that Jefferson assisted in Madison’s attempts to make influence on Hamilton. Fluent phrases of Washington about equal and pure state with a high level of morality were further opposed by Madison who noted:
Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions. (Ville 600)
So Madison accompanied with Jefferson saw the goal prescription of democratic society in Socrates’ saying ‘Truth is sprout in discussion’. Discussion in return is a manifestation of diversity in opinions. This intentions as well as Madison’s and his associates inclinations presupposed a great number of the ideas, theories and experience of the eminent politics, philosophers and researchers on public affairs.
In return they created one of the most stable, unless saying the only, Constitution valid and efficient for more than two hundred years. Taking into account all the controversies rose in the US existence of that time it is obvious to mention that the natural principles of governing helped the Founding Fathers and James Madison in person to create a powerful law and infrastructural base with strict and clear delegation of authoritities outlined and performed in the Constitution.
Works cited
Goldie, Mark. “John Locke Icon of Liberty: Mark Goldie Traces the Ways in Which People across the Political Spectrum Have Used and Abused the Ideas of the Philosopher Who Died 300 Years Ago This Month.” History Today. 2004.
Locke, John. The Second Treatise of Government. Ed. Thomas P. Peardon. Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1960.
Vile, John R. The Constitutional Convention of 1787: a comprehensive encyclopedia of America’s founding. ABC-CLIO, 2005.