Replies

Brutus’ Critique

This is a short paper in which Brutus raises objections whose strength may make the reader smile, given that the dire predictions therein have not come to pass.

Haven’t they?

4 I might instance a number of clauses in the Constitution which, if explained in an equitable manner, would extend the powers of the government to every case and reduce the state legislatures to nothing,

The states are only allowed to do what the Feds haven’t taken over and must do what the Feds tell them to do. Right? If not "nothing" then they’ve become the next best thing.

14 It will therefore be no fiction for a citizen of one state to set forth in a suit that he is a citizen of another, for he that is entitled to all the privileges and immunities of a country is a citizen of that country.

15 And in truth, the citizen of one state will, under this Constitution, be a citizen of every state.

Doesn’t the debate over gay marriage prove this true? If one state allows a gay marriage, all must honor it and prepare for gay divorces.

28 From these remarks it is easy to see that in proportion as the general government acquires power and jurisdiction by the liberal construction which the judges may give the Constitution, will those of the states lose its rights until they become so trifling and unimportant as not to be worth having

Truth? It seems so to me. States can barely keep the Feds from declaring "gun-free zones" around schools and only because the USSC said so.

Madison was justified in his pride at the action of checks and balances, but Brutus was more than justified at his dismay that this area of enormous importance was left to be worked out at all.

I think the dichotomy here is that Madison wanted to create a national government supreme to the state governments. Madison knew that over time it would assert its authority even over the constitutional amendments that tried to prevent it. He argued as such in the Constitutional Convention, I believe. Brutus sees the obvious fact that a USSC appointed by a nationally elected president would defer to the power of the national government. Before the 17^th Amendment, the state governments could only stop justices being appointed through the Senate. The states would not appoint judges hence the judges would be, first, acceptable to the national government.

Discussion Topic

What possible solutions exist to move the balance in favor of federalism, and how could they be implemented peacefully?

Peacefully? You’re such a stickler.

Well in the end, Madison gets his way. He was right. Either the state governments would be supreme, as in the Articles of Confederation, or the national government would, as in the Constitution. An amendment here or there doesn’t change this fact.

The only check I can see is to let the states appoint Supreme Court Justices. Only then would the filter be set such that "their people" would decide the issue. Of course, that makes no sense. A national government with justices appointed by the states? That would be dysfunctional.