The recent election of 2008 has been a unique and exciting election. During this time I have had some contact with people in my chat group in China (English Share), and there has been some chat back and forth about elections. However, the most vocal of these chat buddies is a guy who calls himself Arthur. Arthur is studying diplomacy currently, and in the past studied in the US for 6 months or so. It is difficult for us to chat about the USA elections and form of government because there is a language barrier. Dispite his expertise in English, he has had few occasions to talk in English about forms of government and our politics. So, while I have thought for several months of trying to set forth a simplified explanation of our form of government for the folks I chat with in China, this seems to be more and more important. I think the place to start is with early times in the start of this country. The Federalist Papers.The Federalist Papers were written and published during the years 1787 and 1788 in several New York State newspapers to persuade New York voters to ratify the proposed constitution.
These papers present much of the thought that went into the development of our countries philosophical traditions. But it becomes evident if one explores the literature of that time that there was a major area of disagreement. The creation of the Constitution entailed hours of debate and compromise, and even when it was completed, some delegates were unhappy with it. The task of fixing the ailing Confederate government was not complete yet; each state had to ratify, or approve, the Constitution. Basically, people divided into two groups, the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. Each of their viewpoints is worth examining, as they both have sound reasoning. The Anti-Federalists did not want to ratify the Constitution. Basically, they argue that: - It gave too much power to the national government at the expense of the state governments.
- There was no bill of rights.
- The national government could maintain an army in peacetime.
- Congress, because of the `necessary and proper clause,' wielded too much power.
- The executive branch held too much power
Of these complaints, the lack of a bill of rights was the most effective. The American people had just fought a war to defend their rights, and they did not want a intimidating national government taking those rights away again. The lack of a bill of rights was the focus of the Anti-Federalist campaign against ratification. The Federalists, on the other hand, had answers to all of the Anti-Federalist complaints. Among them: The separation of powers into three independent branches protected the rights of the people. Each branch represents a different aspect of the people, and because all three branches are equal, no one group can assume control over another.
A listing of rights can be a dangerous thing. If the national government were to protect specific listed rights, what would stop it from violating rights other than the listed ones? Since we can't list all the rights, the Federalists argued that it's better to list none at .
Many of the questions raised remain with us today: What is the best form of government? What rights must the government protect? Which government powers should be granted to the states, and which to the federal government? http://law.jrank.org/pages/5603/Constitution-United-States-FEDERALISTS-VERSUS-ANTI-FEDERALISTS.html
The battle between Federal and States rights follows us until today. In our two party system, the Republicans adhere to the States Rights position - as little Federal government as possible. The Democrats take the Federalist position. In these stark terms, the debate is clear and any discussion or argument about the two positions can be carried on is a civilized fashion. The postions can easily be identified and discussed. The waters get muddied, however, when morality, religion, and other such concepts are interwoven into the above - clear - context. The question of whether religion supercedes rules of governence is frequently up for debate. The original intent in America was to have a right to free speech and freedom of religion - or belief. But when religion gets mixed with governence, concepts are quickly muddied. If you take the position that there should be little government - a Republican position - then it is easily possible to weave in more control from religion - and the way of life is there governed by the rule of some god. This is considered a more conservative position, and we refer to it as right wing thought. However, even if you take the position of more government and Federal government, a Democratic position - you can develop a conservative position and one which involves the inclusion of religion. ............................. more to follow |