For more information
Call 1-800-351-0222
Call 1-800-351-0222
MADISONIAN MODEL OF AMERICAN GOVERNMENT.
Term Paper ID:28821
Essay Subject:
James Madison's theories of government & democracy & drafting U..S. Constitution. Separation of powers, checks & balances. First Amendment. Free speech & the Internet.... More...
11 Pages / 2475 Words
10 sources, 42 Citations,
MLA Format
$44.00
More Papers on This Topic
Paper Abstract:
James Madison's theories of government & democracy & drafting U..S. Constitution. Separation of powers, checks & balances. First Amendment. Free speech & the Internet.
Paper Introduction:
American Government: The Madisonian Model
Introduction
Almost immediately after the Revolutionary War ended, the members of the Continental Congress faced what one historian called the "unfinished agenda" of determining precisely what form of government would rule the newly-independent colonies (Binder, Online). Merely dividing power between Congress and the states under the 1781 Articles of Confederation had failed to create a government that could cope with all the issues of a growing new nation, in particular because the powers delegated to Congress under the Articles prevented it from discharging its duties. For example, although Congress was responsible for national defense, foreign relations and development of the West, the Articles did not designate the nature of its leadership or grant it the power to tax (Binder
Text of the Paper:
The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper.
Chin, Andrew. Eds. Dodd, Lawrence. Furthermore, Owen Fiss identifies the underlying logic of protectingfree speech as "collective self-determination," in which people choose theform of life they wish to live and which presupposes that this choice ismade against a background of wide-open public debate. The First Amendment mandatesthat Congress shall enact no law that abridges the freedom of speech. New.Economy@Old.Constitution. Thus, Madison attempted to preserve thebalance of power among the branches of government by denying any branch theability to govern alone by relying on the self-preservation instincts ofeach branch. He constructed theConstitution on a political theory that assumed the basic motive drivingpoliticians was a quest for the power to control the decisions that imposedgovernmental authority on the nation's citizens. This self-governance function of the FirstAmendment is served in a variety of ways. Thus,in the federal system, the system of separation of powers and checks andbalances should disperse power sufficiently to ensure that no oneindividual or faction gains sufficient leverage to dominate the nation.Rather, governmental action requires cooperation among the institutionsthat share power with each institution guarding its integrity and stabilityby guarding its prerogatives (Dodd, 391). Furthermore, by electing the House, Senate, and president bydifferent constituencies for different lengths of time, the public retainsits own check on the excesses of government officials (Binder, Online).Finally, with some powers reserved to the states, power was forcibly splitbetween national, state, and local governments (Binder, Online).Free Speech: Controlling Internet Content in a Madisonian System Today, more than 1 million American adults are using the Internet,up from 65 million in mid-1998 and 84 million at the end of 1998 (Hunter &Pieler, Online). Some authors have argued that increased communication between citizensand representatives has greatly increased the possibility for directdemocracy (Glaeser, Online). Instead, he called for a blending of powers wherebythe national government's powers would be shared among its branches (Dodd,391). "Making the World Wide Web Safe for Democracy: A Medium-Specific First Amendment Analysis." 19 Hastings Communications &Entertainment Law Journal, Spring 1997, 3 9. Online: http://www.richmond.edu/jolt/v4i2/black.html. However, Glaesernotes that we continue to need restraints on representative democracy evenin a perfectly functioning democracy because restraints remain useful toprotect all citizens against abuses of power by their elected leaders.Thus, although increases in democracy might mean that we worry slightlyless about controlling government, we may also find that particular groupsare unusually effective at using the new tools to push their own agendas(Glaeser, Online). Hewanted to create a system that would force such divisions into the openwhere they could be discussed into majoritarian compromises. "Comments on Arthur Appelbaum's 'Failure in theCybermarketplace of Ideas.'" Online:http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/visions/glaeser.htm. Clearly, the Internet is arevolutionary technology, and politicians are struggling to come to gripswith it. Testimony before the United States Senate Committeeon the Judiciary, November 2, 1999. Thus, the Madisonian modelprizes speech as a specific crucial means to the end of popular sovereigntyand focuses on public deliberation as the specific means by which self-governance can be realized. 51, Madison statesthat "ambition must be made to counteract ambition." In other words, asociety comprised of many parts, interests and classes would be less likelyto succumb to a tyrannical majority (Binder, Online).Separation of Powers Madison also had no delusions about the motivations of individuals inpolitics or the institutional tendencies of the three branches that theywould lead (Turley, Online). Under a Madisonianmodel, factional interests and preferences would be coaxed to the surfaceof a legislative process in which they could be addressed only bymajoritarian agreement (Turley, Online). All democracies face a fundamental problem in deciding how muchpolitical participation to allow and by whom. However, the above argument merely echoes Madison'sbelief that opposing factions will always exist in a pluralistic society.As discussed in previous sections, he drafted the Constitution specificallyto address such concerns and to mitigate the tension between such factionsto encourage public compromise. Thus, although judicial powers are lodged in the judicial branch,justices are nominated by the executive branch and confirmed by thelegislative branch. And after the legislature passes a bill, thepresident can veto it unless the veto is overridden by two-thirds of boththe House and Senate. Online:http://weber.ucsd.edu/~egerber/paradoxch1.html. The most significant for thepurposes of this paper are Federalist Nos. to counteract ambition"(Turley, Online).Checks and Balances However, Madison also argued that powers should not be entirelyseparate or distinct. Online:http://www.democracyweb.com/law/www.htm. He believed that, aspower seekers, politicians merely crystallize the factional divisions thatunderlie any society and fuel the political strife in which each factionseeks to dominate the other to maximize its own self-interest in an all-consuming passion that can overlook the general interest and civilliberties of the public (Dodd, 39 ). Furthermore, the public discussion fostered by the FirstAmendment is the basis of the system of representative government andchecks and balances outlined by Madison in the Constitution. He recognized that factions and divisionswithin a nation can, if left unresolved, fester into open conflict or"convulse the society" (Turley, Online). Consequently, restraints may be necessary to block newpowerful special interest groups. Consequently, no one branch can ultimately dominatethe others (Binder, Online). Glaeser, Ed. PrincetonUniversity Press (Forthcoming), 1999. The governmentcannot restrict individual behavior for its own-self interest.Consequently, it cannot prohibit speech merely because it disagrees withthe speaker's position. He argued that national powers had to beallocated to separate executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Faced with the most pluralistic nation onEarth, Madison concluded that "the causes of faction cannot be removed and[] relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its adverseeffects" (Turley, Online). Online: http://www.senate.gov/~judiciary/11299jt.htm. He believed that the solution for opportunistic elements inthe political system was for "[a]mbition . Madison noted that perhaps the most fundamental tradeoff in designingdemocratic government lay between limiting participation to ensurestability and expanding participation to promote liberty (Gerber, Online).To Madison, the greatest threat to a democracy was the destabilizingpotential of broad participation in government because he believed thatdecisions could too often rest on the superior force of an interested andoverbearing majority rather than on the rules of justice and the rights ofthe minor party (Madison, Federalist 1 ). However, Turley points out that throughouthistory, there has never been a Congress that did not want to act like thepresident, a president who did not want to act like Congress, or judges whodid not want to act like both. In the battle to determine the precisewording of the Constitution and thus the form of government that would rulethe states, Madison, along with Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, wrote theFederalist Papers advocating their position. 1 , Madisondiagnosed the problems of the newly formed United States of America asambition, passions, diversity of opinions, and an unequal distribution ofproperty that fueled instability in the states and threatened the publicgood and rights of individuals (Binder, Online). He argued that we speak not merely to hear ourselvesspeak, but to engage in "those activities of thought and communication bywhich we 'govern'" (McIntosh & Cates, Online). Theyargue that the World Wide Web may not promote deliberation, but fosterinstead a series of referenda in cyberspace that betray constitutionalgoals (Chin, 3 9). Under the U.S.Constitution, all ideas deserve a public forum, and the way to combat anti-democratic ideas is through counter-expression. Donald Alexander Downs argues that the"content neutrality rule" -- the general prohibition on content-basedspeech laws -- reflects the logic of procedural justice, which stressesequal access to political processes for all groups within society,including those with unpopular views (Black, 1). If one believes that a primary problem in a democracy is the lackof an effective two-sided transfer of information between citizens andtheir leaders, then the new technology offers an unprecedented opportunityto eliminate many of the limits on information flows. These critics argue that we should now need fewerconstitutional constraints because the World Wide Web allows every minorityand majority member access to a public forum. . "Free Speech & The Internet: The Inevitable Move TowardGovernment Regulation." 4 Richmond Journal of Law & Technology, Winter1997, 1. Nonetheless, the operation of First Amendment jurisprudencedemonstrates Madisonian government at work. Hassing, R.F. Likewise, although the legislature makes the laws,the judicial branch can interpret them (Binder, Online). If democratic deliberation is to be a First Amendment value incyberspace, concerns about balkanization and concentration of power must beexpressed in medium-specific terms, and preferably based on structural aswell as empirical analysis (Chin, 3 9). The First Amendment is asignificant and necessary component to the United States Constitution.Without the freedom to express one's beliefs and ideas, democracy ismeaningless. The Court's and thecommentators' explanations of the purpose of American judicial resistanceto content-based limitations on speech reveal an almost unlimited faith inthe power of an unfettered public discourse to correct falsehoods (Black,1). In this way,separation of powers and creating checks and balances are the keys topreventing the accumulation of too much power within any one branch ofgovernment. Thus, the First Amendment acts as a check ongovernment power, the application of which is overseen by the judiciary. When all ideas are voicedfreely, we have the greatest chance of obtaining the right results (Black,1). Online: http://www.urbsoc.org/cyberpol/speech.shtml. Ashbrook Centerfor Public Affairs, Ashland University. Online:http://www.ipi.org/ipi\IPIPublications.nsf/. In Federalist No. Thus, Madison argued that instead of suppressing the citizens'freedoms to form factions and groups, the path to stability was to create arepublican government that would rely on elected officials to filter andrefine the views of the public thereby reducing popular influence ongovernment (Binder, Online). Similarly, the new technology makes itmuch more possible for governments to work great evil (Glaeser, Online).As such the need to protect oneself against government has become even moreimportant.Conclusion The unfettered access of speech on the Internet and the World Wide Webunder the Madisonian model of government is the correct standard for agovernment that is based on democratic ideals. Hunter, Lawrence & Pieler, George. Only with theratification of the Constitution of the United States of America, writtenin Philadelphia during the summer of 1787, were the thirteen sovereignstates finally transformed into a federal union under a powerful centralgovernment (Hassing, Online).Madison's Theory of Government James Madison was instrumental in the drafting of the AmericanConstitution and consequently the form of government currently employed bythe United States of America. Second, unfettered speech allowspolitical truth to emerge, facilitates the accomplishment of the collectivewill, acts as a restraint on "tyranny, corruption and ineptitude," andcontributes to political stability by acting as a safety valve that allowsthe legal venting of minority viewpoints (McIntosh & Cates, Online). The particular rights and duties contained in theConstitution, including the First Amendment, function to preserve andenhance the sovereign authority of the people. 1 , 47 and 51. " Hard Travelin': Free Speech inthe Age of the Information Super Highway." New Political Science, Winter1997. Chris Toulouse & Tim Luke. Cisco Systems reports that every month, 18 million peoplearound the world go online for the first time and electronic mail alreadyoutnumbers regular mail by a ratio of 1 to 1.1 (Hunter & Pieler, Online).The Internet and the World Wide Web can offer consumers virtually unlimitedopportunities for public discussion and debate. For example, althoughCongress was responsible for national defense, foreign relations anddevelopment of the West, the Articles did not designate the nature of itsleadership or grant it the power to tax (Binder, Online). Thus, hebelieved the key was to deal with the inevitable formation of factions in afree government without suppressing liberty itself. Turley, Jonathan. Consequently, to mitigate thedestabilizing potential of mass participation and to protect minorityinterests, Madison advocated a system of checks and balances under arepresentative form of government (Gerber, Online).Factionalism and Representative Government Where other systems built structures around a view of the commonvalues of a people, Madison designed a system to deal with the things thatdivided us (Turley, Online). Gerber, Elisabeth. Online: http://www.ashbrook.org/publicat/monos/hassing.html. Works Cited Binder, Sarah. In the Federalist Papers, Madison asserted that if men were angels,then no government would be necessary. TheSupreme Court has interpreted this broad mandate as a general prohibitionagainst content-based restrictions on speech, which the Court repeatedlyhas found to be presumptively unconstitutional (Black, 1). Madison saw the natural inclination of citizens to divide on issues ofimportance in a democratic system because, as he argued, "[t]he latentcauses of faction are [] sown in the nature of man" (Turley, Online). In drafting theConstitution, Madison recognized the factional nature of a pluralisticsociety and realized that true democracy only attempted to restrain suchfactionalism as was necessary to allow for democratic decision-making,public compromise and minority protection. IPIPolicy Report - # 153, March 2 , 2 (28 Pages). American Government: The Madisonian ModelIntroduction Almost immediately after the Revolutionary War ended, the members ofthe Continental Congress faced what one historian called the "unfinishedagenda" of determining precisely what form of government would rule thenewly-independent colonies (Binder, Online). Madison makes clear that free public discussion of policy andpolicymakers is the very essence of republican government (McIntosh &Cates, Online). Online:http://www.cee.umn.edu/dis/courses/POL1 1_79 3_ 3.www/course/ 2.html. Black, James. First, speech is the primarymethod of participation in democracy. Since we can have electronic town meetings,and we can regularly email our representatives, some authors have suggestedthat we have the possibility for a brave new world of cyber democracy wheregovernment is revamped to take advantage of these new innovations (Glaeser,Online). There is much moreof a possibility for congressman to post relevant information on their websites. Consequently, there is noneed to fear that minority opinions will not be heard. Moreover, he argued that such a republicwould have to be a large one because the larger the territory, the moreinterests taken in and the less likely that a majority would form tosuppress a minority (Binder, Online). Because the quest for power can pose such afundamental threat to political freedom and stability, Madison argued thatthe best way to protect civil liberties and property was through aconstitution that divided the power of the state among governmentalinstitutions (Dodd, 391). These issues have not changedwith the explosion of the Internet of the last few decades. And if angels were to govern men,then "neither external nor internal controls on government would benecessary" (Turley, Online). What is the Populist Paradox? Merely dividing power betweenCongress and the states under the 1781 Articles of Confederation had failedto create a government that could cope with all the issues of a growing newnation, in particular because the powers delegated to Congress under theArticles prevented it from discharging its duties. Consequently, cyberspace may be a world where we listento what we already agree with and use the channels of communication simplyto signify our approval or disapproval -- a world where individuals expressthemselves, but not one in which they debate and deliberate as democraticcitizens (Chin). There is also much more of a possibility for voters to transmittheir own tastes to their leaders (Glaeser, Online). "The Constitution and Beginnings of NationalPolitics." University of Minnesota: Minneapolis. On the other hand, some authors suggest that the new technologiesrequire that we should abandon our Madisonian restraints on government(Glaeser, Online). "The Federalist Post-1989." John M. "Congress, the Constitution, and the Crisis ofLegitimation." Online: http://spot.colorado.edu/~mcguire/doddcris.html. . From the Madisonian pointof view, the Web allows consumer interested in politics the chance to seeand listen to politics and perhaps even participate in politics in waysthat were impossible just a decade ago. Commentators have found various ways to describe the principles thatunderlie First Amendment law. Consequently, regulation of speech on the Internet under a Madisonianmodel would aim for a structure that promoted creative opportunities andfacilitated audience access to diverse cultural, partisan, andinformational communication.Alternatives to a Madisonian Perspective on Internet Speech Some critics argue that the unfettered access to information availableon the World Wide Web can lead to social balkanization rather than publiccompromise. Such critics believe that individuals or groups will merelyseek positions with which they agree rather than seek out opposingpositions in an attempt to foster public discussion or compromise. The general and central object of the American political experiment,according to Madison, was a transfer of absolute power from the governmentto the people. The Madisonian perspectivehas not yet fully addressed the Web's emergence as the leading mode of masscommunication in cyberspace, and to make room for Madison in cyberspace --to make the Web safe for democracy -- will require a new, particularizedrationale for content regulation. McIntosh, Wayne & Cates, Cynthia. In Federalist No.
If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again:
or
We can write a Custom Essay just for you.
Browse Essays by Subject