Trust in Government and the Foresight of the Federalist Papers

Certainly most Americans would list truthfulness and honesty as a desirable characteristic, a showing of strong moral fiber. In the most recent Presidential Election, exit polls showed more American's listed moral values as the largest factor in deciding for whom they would vote. A look at comments given by voters in key electoral states shows their concern for a president they can trust. In Ohio, a police officer said his decision to vote for President Bush "came down to moral issues." A Colorado voter said "Many of my concerns are Democrat concerns. But I just didn't trust Kerry." While this voter followed her comments by specifying she didn't trust that Kerry would follow through on his promises, it is clear that many American's feel they should trust the person for whom they choose to vote. While this seemingly ties into the characteristics we as American's deem desirable, some of our founding fathers envisioned a government where the people could trust the structure of government and process of governing rather than individuals themselves.

After the Philadelphia Convention, eighty-five letters were published forming, The Federalist Papers. These articles were printed anonymously, under the name Publius, to encourage ratification of the proposed constitution. One of the recurring themes of the articles is the fallibility of man. Consistently throughout the papers, the authors (now known to be John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison) showcase the proposed government's system of checks and balances. Publius argues that the proposed form of government will be strong and worthy of its citizens trust, despite the inherent untrustworthiness of mankind.

It is widely accepted that The Federalist Papers were not meant as a political treatise, but rather as persuasive arguments for the ratification of the constitution. However, over two centuries later, the strengths highlighted by the papers have held true. In the last thirty-five years alone, our country has faced several situations where our leaders have breached the trust of their constituents, if not flat broken the law. Despite these blemishes in American History, our country has flourished.
While Jay, Madison and Hamilton may not have been able to foresee some of the crises we have faced, they certainly saw a government structured so that our country could survive the dishonesty or criminality of some of our leaders.

The Federalist Papers
Before the foresight of The Federalist Papers can be truly recognized, it is necessary to examine some of the Papers in more detail.

Federalist No. 41:

Federalist No. 41 involves the "General View of the Powers Conferred by the Constitution." The article, like the Papers as a whole, accepts the necessity of government without comment. Publius states that, when designing a new government, a unique task at the time of The Federalist Papers, "that the choice must always be made, if not of the lesser evil, at least of the GREATER, not the PERFECT, good; and that in every political institution, a power to advance the public happiness involves a discretion which may be misapplied and abused, " (emphasis included). In light of the recent revolution against an arguably overpowering monarchy, it is certainly understandable that the masses would be wary of granting power to a new national government. However, as was accepted, some form of government was necessary. Federalist No. 41 broke the powers conferred by the constitution, and in their view, the necessary governmental powers, into six classes:

1.Security against foreign danger
2.Regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations
3.Maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States
4.Certain miscellaneous objects of general utility
5.Restraint of the States from certain injurious acts
6.Provisions for giving due efficacy to all of these powers.

Without question, most Americans would say that these enumerated powers are necessary for a successful government. But the perspective from which the people of the eighteenth century were viewing these powers was drastically different than today. We have over two-hundred years of history to cite in advocating for the necessity of the power to secure against foreign danger or restraint of the states from certain injurious acts. The post-colonial people perhaps were not anticipating an attack on Pearl Harbor or secession from the Union over slavery. At first glance, with knowledge of American History and a firm understanding of the necessity of these powers, one may assume that the opposition to the views of The Federalist Papers may believe these powers are not necessary to rest in the hands of one leader. However, the opposition questioned the necessity of these powers resting in the hands of a federal government.

In the first class, security against foreign danger, Publius lists the powers "of declaring war…, of providing armies and fleets, of regulating and calling forth the militia; of levying and borrowing money." Since Publius accepts without question the need for the power to declare war, the significant majority of the No. 41 focuses on the need for government to have a standing army and fleets in wartime and peace, as well as the indefinite power to raise troops.

The main point Publius raises in defense of the indefinite power is summarized in a rhetorical question posed: "How could a readiness for war in time of peace be safely prohibited, unless we could prohibit, in like manner, the preparations and establishments of every hostile nation?" Publius continues to argue that despite protection offered by the natural distance of the United States from potential enemies (a protection that faded as modes of transportation and weaponry became more sophisticated, a possibility that may have been seen by Publius, yet went unmentioned), the ability to defend itself is something any nation must possess if it wishes to flourish. A federal government lacking the ability to provide a united army cannot be expected to succeed, and individual states cannot be expected to defend itself as successfully as a united army.

Federalist No. 51:
Federalist No. 51 is subtitled "The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments." The system of checks and balances is now a government fundamental that is taught to every middle school student in America. It is well known that the President has a check on Congress in the form of a Veto, that Congress can override that Veto, and the Supreme Court can declare that law unconstitutional, thereby striking from the Federal Code. If the unconstitutional law is deemed so necessary, the government and the states can amend the constitution to allow for the law. American's can sleep well knowing that each aspect of government has been granted authority to keep all others from exceeding their power.

However, at the time of publication of Federalist No. 51, the masses could not be expected to understand these provisions, much less have confidence in their success. Publius advocated that this method would protect the public from an overpowering quasi-monarchy. Publius stated that "the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. " The authors of The Federalist Papers were able to envision the proposed government and the workings of the proposed checks and balances. Little did they know that their vision may have been thwarted a few years later had it not been for the decision and enforcement of Marbury v. Madison.
While the history of the United States and checks and balances may have been drastically altered had it not been for this one decision, the issue never would have arisen but for the vision of the drafters of the Constitution and their distrust in mankind. As previously quoted, "If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. " Because of the lack of trust leading to the checks and balances placed in the Constitution, our country has been able to thrive over the course of time.

We have persevered through assassinations, impeachments, presidential election controversies and other national crises. While the checks and balances may have helped us succeed through these times, it has played a much more vital role below the surface. United States Presidents through President William Jefferson Clinton have vetoed more than two-thousand-five-hundred proposed bills. Of those, only a little more than one hundred vetoes have been overturned. The United States Senate has sat for impeachment hearings, pursuant to Article I, Section 3 of the United States Constitution, sixteen times, including two presidents, a member of the Supreme Court, and a US Senator. The United States Supreme Court has declared 127 different Acts of Congress unconstitutional, at least in part, according to a document sponsored by the United States Senate. The United States Supreme Court has also found 124 acts of States unconstitutional, at least in part, through November 1, 1996 according to a document sponsored by the United States Senate. Certainly, if angels were to govern, these checks and balances would not be necessary.

Federalist No. 69:

Federalist No. 69 is subtitled "The Real Character of the Executive." In this article, Publius compares the role of the President of the United States with the British Monarchy. Understandably, the post-colonial Americans wanted to prevent an American Monarchy. However, the need for constitutional provisions preventing such a monarchy would not be needed if the Americans had confidence and trust in government generally. If mankind were not fallible, as previously discussed, these previsions would not be needed. Given the distrust of an individual leader, the authors of Federalist No. 69 needed to make a strong case for the constitutional provisions that allow Americans to trust the Office of the President of the United States. At this time, the opposition to the Constitution, and the intended readers of these articles, had some form of limited trust in their state governments and were hesitant to put there trust in a federal government. Therefore, Publius also compared the Office of President to the Office of the Governor of New York.

The first provision mentioned is the term limit of the presidency to four years. Compared to the lifetime role of a monarch, and a three year term of governor, Publius makes the case that a monarchy will be prevented . Additionally, the president would be subject to impeachment and removal from office. While the British King has the ultimate power to veto legislation, the veto power of the president can be overridden by a supermajority in Congress. Additional powers, and the limits thereof, are mentioned and contrasted to monarchies, such as the power to pardon, make treaties, declare war, and the power of the legislature. These powers and there limits are also common knowledge to any one who has taken a middle school civics class, but once again, the need to make the case for the constitutional protections against monarchy are quire clear when taken in light of the then recent fight for independence and the distrust of government.

The Federalist Papers' Comments in Modern Politics

Election 2000:
In over 200 years of American History, we have faced tragedy and times of tribulation, as any country has. However, never have we faced a violent coup d'etat. Dozens of times we have witnessed a change of power. Not once, however, has this change been at the hands of violence of war. We have never seen a President who had to use force against Americans to stay in office. The most contested change of power we have witnessed was determined not by armed men, but rather by the United States Supreme Court. When our country was faced with doubt as to who won a democratic election, the matter worked its way through our court system in a swift manner. The contenders raised money for a legal fight rather than raising arms for a physical battle. Were it not for the checks and balances, and the trust that has been built not in a single politician, but in the form of government to which we adhere, our nation may not have been able to flourish through such a challenge.

Richard Nixon:
On August 8, 1974, President Richard Nixon resigned from office in the shadow of a national scandal in which he was accused of illegal activities in his recent re-election to office. The scandal did not result in an overthrow of government. Nixon's resignation did not leave the country without a leader. Rather, the Vice-President, who had recently been confirmed by the United States Congress per the constitutional checks and balance system in light of a different scandal which forced the previous Vice-President, Spiro Agnew, to resign, was sworn in and took the reigns of a stable government. While some still say Nixon's resignation led to a severe distrust of government, that distrust paled in comparison to the time of the ratification of the United States Constitution. Our country had survived a major scandal in which the leader peacefully handed over power to his successor, all while the country recovered from a major military event that sharply divided the country.

William Clinton:
In 1998, President William Jefferson Clinton became only the second United States President to face impeachment. During the course of his presidency, Clinton faced numerous scandals and charges, ranging from adultery to obstruction of justice. President Clinton all but admitted to lying to the American Public. The President's representatives did admit that he was trying to conceal a relationship with an office intern. Strong opinions varied throughout the country, but ultimately the President was acquitted of the impeachment charges and reached a settlement to avoid prosecution after he left office. Regardless of personal opinion as to the fate of President Clinton, it cannot be denied that the constitutional provisions advocated by The Federalist Papers provided for a stable, fair means by which the President could be held accountable for his actions without disrupting the governing of the country.

Judicial Confirmations:
One strong Check against the Judicial Branch is the nomination of federal judges by the President and confirmation of such nominations by the United States Senate. This process also provides a check against the President in that he may not appoint any candidate without the candidate being confirmed by the Senate. In recent years, the role of this process has come to the forefront. In a May 3, 2004 article, the New York Times quotes President Bush as stating there is a shortage of Federal Judges, a stab at the Senate for not confirming his nominees expeditiously. However, in retort, Democratic leaders in the Senate are quoted as blaming the shortage on the failure for previous Senates to confirm the nominees of President Clinton.

Issues have arisen about the role of the Senate in confirming judicial nominees. The Constitution provides that "[The President] shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint…judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for… " Differing branches have differing opinions as to the meaning of "advice and consent." The Senate clearly feels the "advice" provision entails detailed inquiry into the views, beliefs, and qualifications of nominees. The Presidency, however, feels that the inquiry should be limited and the Senate's primary responsibility is simply to confirm qualified candidates. Regardless of how the issue is resolved, the checks and balances on the various branches remain strong and Americans can remain confident that their judicial officials will have requisite qualifications for the office to which they are confirmed.

Modern Political Ideals and Addresses
After a devastating Revolutionary War where American's fought to the death for there independence from an overpowering monarchy, it is obvious post-colonial Americans would be reluctant to bestow power in a federal government. However, the founding fathers had the foresight to see the need for a stable federal government with the strength go lead a new country yet flexible enough to change with the times. The founding fathers also saw the need to create a government that could, regardless of the amount of power bestowed upon it, prevent abuses of power and trust. The Federalist Papers served not only to demonstrate a need for the powers granted to a federal government, but also to explain the checks and balances to those that were not ready to place their trust in a federal government. Over two-hundred years later, our country has had the ability to witness these checks and balances in action. We have seen these provisions prevent and stop corruption, we have seen the need for a strong federal government, and we have seen more than two centuries of American History without a tyrannical ruler. As we approached the twenty-first century, the role of trust in government had changed. Today, trust is listed as a key trait citizens look for in a leader. Moral value is one of the most significant deciding factors in choosing a leader.

As this role of trust in government changes, so does the way modern politicians approach the role of government. There is still a debate over the size of government, whether certain issues should be handled by state government or the federal government. Modern politicians are more inclined to attempt to instill trust in government. Two-hundred years after The Federalist Papers, presidents and presidential candidates are not shy about asking for the trust of their constituents.
In his first inaugural address, President Clinton stated the following:

Powerful people maneuver for position and worry endlessly about who is in and who is out, who is up and who is down, forgetting those people whose toil and sweat sends us here and pays our way. Americans deserve better, and in this city today, there are people who want to do better. And so I say to all of us here, let us resolve to reform our politics, so that power and privilege no longer shout down the voice of the people. Let us put aside personal advantage so that we can feel the pain and see the promise of America.

The initial part of this quote addresses a key problem post-colonial Americans were concerned about. However, rather than addressing the problem by ensuring a power-hungry politician could not overstep his bounds, President Clinton asks for the support of American's in changing the face of politics and preventing these problems. At the time of The Federalist Papers, this notion would fall on deaf ears. However, with centuries of prosperity under our belts, the American public may now be in a position to start to trust their government and there politicians.

President Clinton continued this theme in his second inaugural address. He stated:
Government is not the problem, and government is not the solution. We-the American people-we are the solution. Our founders understood that well and gave us a democracy strong enough to endure for centuries, flexible enough to face our common challenges and advance our common dreams in each new day.

President Clinton does not address the direct role of trust in government. However he does mention the strength of government and the strength of form of government created by the founding fathers.

On September 11, 2004, our nation faced its most devastating attack to date. There is no way to prepare for such a situation and reactions to this sort of development are perhaps the best way to judge true feelings about government. Within hours of the attack, President Bush addressed the nation and stated:

I've been in regular contact with the Vice President, the Secretary of Defense, the national security team and my Cabinet. We have taken all appropriate security precautions to protect the American people. Our military at home and around the world is on high alert status, and we have taken the necessary security precautions to continue the functions of your government.

This paragraph alone provides a unique insight to the view of government and the success of the form of government our founding fathers developed. The President is granted by the Constitution the power to call forth the militia. Under these circumstances, anything short of this power would have been an extreme inconvenience. This situation was specifically addressed by Publius in stating that the power to call forth the militia is necessary in times of war and in times of peace. In this statement, there is mention of consulting with several offices. None of these offices, however, is in the legislative or judicial branch of the government. This is because the power to call forth the militia rests solely with the President. The granting of this power is unchecked by any other branch, but likely this is out of necessity.

In the face of an attack of this kind, it would be impossible for the President to consult with various branches before taking immediate action. The necessity of defense outweighs the fear of tyranny. Perhaps the most poignant aspect of this statement is that it does not address domestic unrest or assurances of the stability of the government. Based on the form of government under which we live, Americans, facing the largest tragedy in modern history and the first terrorist attack on our soil, could rest assured that our government would continue as always. Evidence of the stability of government is reflected in the fact that the day after this attack, September 12, 2004, the White House continued with the business of government, sending to Congress a list of nominations to various administrative posts and ambassadorships.

Conclusion

The view of the federal government and its powers has evolved over the last two-hundred years. At the time of the authorship of The Federalist Papers, there was strong distrust of any national government for fear that it would be come overpowering and tyrannical. Publius sought to assure the general public of the checks and balances present in the proposed Constitution. Understanding the concerns of post-colonial Americans, the authors of The Federalist Papers sought to illustrate the need for a centralized government with the powers enumerated in the Constitution. While laying out the case for the powers, the authors also assured the masses that the structure proposed, and the checks and balances present in the structure, would assure no man would gain excessive power. The proposed form of government would assure the public that they could trust the government and if trust was misplaced with a specific leader, the opposing branches of government would have the ability to counteract the overreaching of the leader exceeding the bounds of his office.

Now our country has flourished through more than two full centuries. It is difficult for a modern constituent to understand the doubts and concerns existing before ratification of our Constitution. However, we have had time to bear witness to the performance of the governments checks and balances, we have seen over two-hundred years of governance without a tyrannical leader, without the kind of corruption so prevalent in other nations. Despite the concerns of early Americans, it was not until almost two-hundred years had passed that the true fabric of our Constitution would be tested.

On August 9, 1974, President Gerald Ford was sworn into office as President of the United States. For the first time, an American President had resigned after bringing shame to the White House. Under the laws and constitution of any other nation, the leadership may have changed hands under martial law. A government without our checks and balances may have spent years under the leadership of a President who betrayed their trust. Instead, our government responded much in a manner anticipated by John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison. Facing a potential impeachment, Richard Nixon stepped down and handed the reigns of America to a new President. Gerald Ford "assume[d] the Presidency under extraordinary circumstances never before experienced by Americans. [Under] an hour of history that trouble[d] our minds and hurt our hearts. "

In his first address after being sworn in as the President of the United States, President Ford remarked, "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over. Our Constitution works; our great Republic is a government of laws and not of men." Publius can rest assured that his analysis of the proposed constitution was accurate. At the time, The Federalist Papers may not have been intended as a political treatise. However, centuries later, the articles can be taught in schools not only as a part of our constitutional history, but as a superb analysis of the structure of the Government of the United States. Our nation has grown and evolved, the role of trust in government has changed since the first publication of The Federalist Papers, but the truths written about the structure of government remain as accurate as ever.