Madison: Concerned with legislative usurpation in 1788.

New York Packet ^ | Friday, February 1, 1788 | Madison

[Bobby_Taxpayer]

"The founders of our republics have so much merit for the wisdom which they have displayed, that no task can be less pleasing than that of pointing out the errors into which they have fallen. A respect for truth, however, obliges us to remark, that they seem never for a moment to have turned their eyes from the danger to liberty from the overgrown and all-grasping prerogative of an hereditary magistrate, supported and fortified by an hereditary branch of the legislative authority. They seem never to have recollected the danger from legislative usurpations, which, by assembling all power in the same hands, must lead to the same tyranny as is threatened by executive usurpations. In a government where numerous and extensive prerogatives are placed in the hands of an hereditary monarch, the executive department is very justly regarded as the source of danger, and watched with all the jealousy which a zeal for liberty ought to inspire. In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people...; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions...."

[Bobby_Taxpayer]

He concludes with:

"The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands."

Our Founders forewarned us of this trouble. Now it is "self evident"! Note his differentiation on democracy vs representative republic comments.

[tet68]

In a democracy, where a multitude of people exercise in person the legislative functions, and are continually exposed, by their incapacity for regular deliberation and concerted measures, to the ambitious intrigues of their executive magistrates, tyranny may well be apprehended, on some favorable emergency, to start up in the same quarter. But in a representative republic, where the executive magistracy is carefully limited; both in the extent and the duration of its power; and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired, by a supposed influence over the people...; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people ought to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions....”

[egannacht]

Monarchism is as evil a despotism as any other tyranny, except it involves incest which is a far greater crime against humanity

[Diogenesis]

“There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could, follow the example of
Pharaoh — get first all the people’s money, then their lands, and then make them and
their children servants forever. It will be said that we do not propose to establish kings. I
know it. But there is a natural inclination in mankind to kingly government. It sometimes
relieves them from aristocratic domination. They had rather have one tyrant than 500. It
gives more the appearance of equality among citizens, and that they like. I am
apprehensive — therefore — perhaps too apprehensive — that the government of these
States may in future times end in a monarchy [not called a monarchy but an executive
with monarchial powers]. But this catastrophe, I think, may long be delayed, if in our
proposed system we do not sow the seeds of contention, faction and tumult, by making
our posts of honor places of profit. If we do, I fear that, though we employ at first a
number and not a single person, the number will in time be set aside, it will only nourish
the fetus of a king (as the honorable gentleman from Virginia very aptly expressed it),
and a king will the sooner be set over us.”

-- Benjamin Franklin

[egannacht]

The reason why I point out the evils of monarchism is twofold: Madison was speaking on the subject of hereditary powers found in European courts and parliaments. Madison’s distaste of hereditary powers is a view most on FR share, but there are some that sincerely argue for monarchism.

[MichiganConservative]

Democracy sucks! It is mob rule.

This is why certain people say a whole bunch of things are not federal matters and maybe shouldn’t be the subject of laws at all. The government always grows and it feeds on your life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

[Earthdweller]

With these comments, Madison "gets it"...this Congress just wants to "get theirs". Revenge and power at the experience of Liberty.

Some people are good at burning down the house but they couldn't build one to save their soul.

[Earthdweller]

Revenge and power at the expense of Liberty. The Romans would be proud.

[Touch Not the Cat]

.
Did you see this: “Doomed From the Start?” http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2475161/posts

[Ken H]

Good post. This is what comes from corrupting the original understanding of the Commerce Clause. In contrast to the power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, the power to regulate commerce among the several states was not to be used for the positive purposes of fedgov. James Madison on the power to regulate commerce among the several states:

Yet it is very certain that it grew out of the abuse of the power by the importing States in taxing the non-importing, and was intended as a negative and preventive provision against injustice among the States themselves, rather than as a power to be used for the positive purposes of the General Government, in which alone, however, the remedial power could be lodged.

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_3_commerces19.html

_____________________________________

[Bobby_Taxpayer]

Although I hope Obamacare never sees the light of day, I feel that the House WILL continue to IGNORE the will of the people. All of these arguments will them have to put into play before the the Supremes (SCOTUS). It also will be a partisan 5-4.

[Ken H]

Hard for me to have much confidence in SCOTUS limiting the Commerce Clause. Scalia seems to be fully on board with the elastic view:

...the authority to enact laws necessary and proper for the regulation of interstate commerce is not limited to laws governing intrastate activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce.

J. Scalia, concurring in Raich