What do you think?
Rate this book
Great Debate: Advocates and Opponents of the American Constitution
Recent years have seen an explosion of interest in and interpretation of the U.S. Constitution. Its authority and stature are routinely invoked by voices from every point on the political spectrum, with frequent references to the Founding Fathers and their true "intent." What really was their true intent?
As these 12 surprising lectures show, many of those Founding Fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry - were highly critical of the new Constitution and staunchly opposed it when it was first put forth for ratification by the states as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.
The debate over the Constitution raged for the better part of two years, and beneath its rhetorical flourishes lay not only the longest and most profound civic argument in our nation's history, but also a civics lesson that deserves to endure for all time. It was an argument that would result not only in the ratification of the Constitution, but also in what that Constitution would become.
Professor Pangle takes you into this debate. You'll see which Founders opposed the new Constitution, which Founders led the battle for it, and how both sides helped define the result. In an era when contemporary arguments on the national stage so often mirror the same conflicts debated by the Founders, our own reenactment of that original debate can enrich our ability to be active and participating citizens.
As these 12 surprising lectures show, many of those Founding Fathers - including Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry - were highly critical of the new Constitution and staunchly opposed it when it was first put forth for ratification by the states as a replacement for the Articles of Confederation.
The debate over the Constitution raged for the better part of two years, and beneath its rhetorical flourishes lay not only the longest and most profound civic argument in our nation's history, but also a civics lesson that deserves to endure for all time. It was an argument that would result not only in the ratification of the Constitution, but also in what that Constitution would become.
Professor Pangle takes you into this debate. You'll see which Founders opposed the new Constitution, which Founders led the battle for it, and how both sides helped define the result. In an era when contemporary arguments on the national stage so often mirror the same conflicts debated by the Founders, our own reenactment of that original debate can enrich our ability to be active and participating citizens.
7 pages, Audible Audio
First published January 1, 2007
5 people are currently reading
95 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
April 22, 2022
Anyone interested in the creation of the U.S. Constitution should read this Great Courses text. Pangle takes the reader into the hearts and minds of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists, exploring what it was they thought the constitution was creating and why they thought this was a good or bad thing. In doing so, he creates the case for the Bill of Rights as a compromise document that permitted the acceptance of the constitution. It’s a thought-provoking course.
If you liked this review, you can find more at .
If you liked this review, you can find more at .
December 9, 2011
I was a member of a book group that decided to read and discuss the book "The Federalist Papers" for our December 2011 meeting. The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays written in 1787 and 1788 to promote the ratification of the United States Constitution. It's the equivalent of reading a 600 paged legal brief written by an 18th century lawyer. Actually, that's exactly what it is. Therefore, it's not an easy read for a 21st century reader, or at least I didn't experience it as an easy read.
Therefore I was very appreciative of this collection of twelve lectures that provide an easy to follow explanation of the debate between the anti-federalists and the the federalists. I grew up being taught that the U.S.Constitution was next to the Bible (almost) as being sacred. It's surprising to learn that its adoption was a close vote in many of the states, and that many of the leading politicians of the day opposed it. There are many examples of prophetic warnings made by the anti-federalists that subsequently came true. However, if the Constitution had not been approved surely many of the warning prophecies of the Federalist would have come true.
Frankly, it's miraculous they came up with a system that worked as well as it did. One has to remember that they didn't have any proven examples to follow. Of course they had the British parliamentary system as one model, but it was a monarchy and they knew for sure they didn't want that! Then there was the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation but they had their deficiencies that were clearly pointed out by the Federalist Papers. Beyond that there were the examples of the ancient Greek and Roman republics. Anybody who has read "Plutarch's Lives" or "The Peloponnesian War" knows that those repulics were short lived and filled with intrigue.
French social commentator, Montesquieu, in 1748 had written a book titled "De l'esprit des lois (The Spirt of the Laws) in which he articulated the possible merits of republics and the means by which they could avoid many of the problems experienced by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Montesquieu had many good ideas such as separation of powers. However, he envisioned small republics populated by people of similar religion and culture and with minimal diversity of wealth. That model simply didn't fit the United States, and the anti-federalists feared that centralization of power in a federal government was moving in the wrong direction away from the model envisioned by Montesquieu.
It was the genius of James Madison (supported by Alexander Hamilton) to envision his concept of the Madisonian republic where a centralized government could be designed in such a way that the larger and more diverse the population, and the greater extent of the land within the country, the more stable and safe the country would be from the influence of mobs and despots. His point was that democracy was too prone to be self destructive at the local level and that the distancing of the central government from the local government increased the likelihood that the better types of representatives would be selected to represent the states at the federal level. The larger the population the less likely an unruly minority (or religion) could improperly influence the central government.
It has occurred to me that perhaps the development of instantaneous communications through the advent of the internet has diminished the effectiveness of the Madisonian republic model by creating virtual mobs and despots. This could perhaps explain the apparent increased polarization of modern societies. We need the wisdom of James Madison to suggest tweaks to the system to keep it functioning as intended.
This ends the review in my words. The rest of the text contained below are partial transcriptions of parts of Lectures 7 and 8. I include it here to provide an example of the nature and quality of the lectures. However, it is quite long so you the reader have my permission to stop reading at this point.
(this is an introductory paragraph is lifted from Lecture 8)
The anti-federalist following the classical republicanism are concerned to prevent or repress the spirit of faction from becoming prevalent in the citizenry. The anti-federalists are still guided by the ideal of a homogeneous and harmonious fraternal citizenry while the new Madisonian vision not only accepts faction but makes the spirit of faction an animating spirit of the republic.
(the following is from lecture 7)
Madison’s definition of faction in the 10th paper. “By a faction I understand a number of citizen’s, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse, passion or of interests adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent or aggregate interests of the community.�
Faction for Madison implies the predominance of passions and interest that moves groups of citizens in ways that threaten injury to the rights of others citizens or to the good of the whole community. It is crucial that we keep this precise and pejorative definition of faction firmly in mind as we follow Madison’s argument through the 10th Federalist Paper, or otherwise we won’t recognize how radical or shocking his argument is.
Madison proposes that this new constitution frames the first kind of republic in all of human history which has an “effective tendency� to break and control the violence of faction. And the new unclassical spirit of the Constitution becomes clearer when we follow Madison’s argument when we follow his argument how this breaking and controlling of the violence of faction is to be accomplished.
Madison begins by submitting that there are only two methods of curing the “mischiefs of faction.� The one by removing its causes. The other by controlling its effects.
The first method, removing its causes, means somehow preventing factions from becoming major factors in civic life. And there are only two ways of accomplishing this. The first is despotically doing away with liberty, and thus preventing citizens from being able to form politically effective interest groups which would attempt to dominate or exploit one another. And this suppression of groups is out of the question for Americans.
The second way is to that the path of the classical republican tradition, that is to try to make the population homogeneous in its outlook, a fraternal community. ... An this is what Madison makes clear is what the Constitution rejects as impracticable.
The proposed constitution is based upon the deep premise that any attempt to build a fraternal community of public spirited citizens, sharing the same outlook, is simply against human nature. As Madison put is, “The latent causes of faction are thus sewn in the nature of man, and we see them everywhere.� ... “The first object of government is the protection of these faculties from which the rights of property originate.�
And then Madison observes that when government succeeds in this prime purpose of protecting the acquisitive selfish faculties the necessary result is the emergence of different degrees and kinds of property and thereby great economic diversity and great economic inequality among the citizens. ....
This faculty for acquiring property are themselves unequal or unequal distributed and this necessarily divides society into mutually opposed parties or factions from the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
But it is not only the competing economic interests that necessarily split human society into warring factions. Madison also stresses a zeal for differing opinions concerning religion as the first in a list of differences of opinions that always have this effect of creating factions of mutually hostile groups. The list also includes zealotry for conflicting political opinions. But also zealotry for all sorts of other opinions in theory and in practice. And in addition attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for preeminence in power. ....
... Madison’s conception is complex. He does not rule out the role of enlightened statesmen. But He insists that such statesmen rarely prevail over the immediate interests of which one party over another. ... He also recognizes strong bonds of friendship among Americans but he contends that such natural bonds are by no means strong enough to prevent the more natural emergence of fierce and mutually hurtful factional competition. Economic competition is the most powerful source of the natural hatred and animosity that overwhelms kinship and public spirit. ...
.. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and “involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.� This last phrase is pregnant and a most important phrase in the entire Federalist Papers. ... In their new solution to the problem of faction, the spirit of faction, what he call mutual animosity, is going to be accepted as a routine intrinsic and even necessary part of American republican government. Faction is going to be used as the primary tool to combat and control faction. The new American government will fight fire with fire. ...
The new American republic is to be the first republic in history that is going to tolerate and foster and in some measure depend on promoting faction. Mutually antagonistic competition among selfish groups seeking to exploit one another throughout society and inside the government itself. ...
Madison’s next step is to argue that once we have admitted this basic and rather grim truth we have to realize that in a republican society where the majority has the preponderant power, where the majority is the legitimate authority, the most serious danger is not from any minority faction but rather from the majority if and when it becomes united as a faction. For since the majority has the greater power and the greatest legitimacy, it can defeat in the long run and over all a check on a regular basis all minority factions. But who or what can check the majority if an when it becomes a united single faction?
The experience of the failure of classical republicanism shows that most likely and most pernicious single faction is most likely to be the poorer factions uniting against the wealthy who are always the fewer. The poorer faction often proceed under the leadership of demagogs to place the rights of property under such threats that either the economy is ruined or the property classes are compelled to fight back in ruinous civil conflict.
It’s this problem of majority faction that is the great problem of all past republics that has never before been solved. And this is why the cause of republicanism has fallen into disrepute. So its the solution of this problem, the problem of majoritarian faction which is then the great object of which our inquires are directed. ... By what means is this object obtainable? ...
Either the existence of the same faction or interest in the majority must be prevented or the majority having having such a passion or interest must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. In order for either of these effects to happen we must avoid setting up a pure democracy. What Madison means by democracy is “a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person.� For is such a pure democratic society the assembled assembly has direct political power, and will easily coalesce into a unified faction. Some degree of mob rule guided by demagogues is the all too common fate of direct democracies.
Madison is here contradicting a basic premise of the Anti-Federalists. ...
What we must set up instead of democracies in the classic sense is a republic by which he means, “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.� ... The two great differences between a democracy and a republic are: First, the delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. Second, the greater number of citizens and the great sphere of country over which [the republic] may be extended.
Here we see the heart of the new Madisonian republican vision. The new American constitution aims not a confederacies of small democratic participatory republics. But instead at one large extended mass republic where the people never can assemble to govern directly. And hence the majority can never unite and become directly oppressive of minorities and individuals.
But the most important consideration in this regard is not simply that the country’s territory and numbers will be too big for the majority to ever physically assemble in one place. More important is the fact that the majority will be so diverse, and so riven by conflicting factional interests trying to oppress one another, especially economic, that it will rarely share the same interests. Or when it does it will have great difficulty in becoming aware of that sharing.
As Madison puts it in his most important single statement explaining what, as he puts it, “what principally is to render factious combinations less to be dreaded� is to extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. Or if such a common mode exists it will be more difficult for all to feel it and discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.
Hence it clearly appears that the same advantage that the republic has over a democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large [republic] over a small republic, is enjoyed by the union over the states composing it.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states but it will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. ...
Madison places the Anti-Federalist argument on its head in two major respects. Where the Anti-Federalists follow classical republican theory in seeking homogeneity of the populous to avoid clashing of interests, Madison is saying that such clashing is the key to maintaining liberty in a republic.
(the following is from lecture 8)
........
The anti-federalist following the classical principles want to keep the reigns of government more directly in the hands of the people. And so they worry about the distancing of the representatives from the people and from the people’s control. But for Madison it just such removal of the representatives from their constituents that is one key to safe as well as effective government.
And Madison states even more emphatically and explicitly that the new constitution aims at the unclassical goal of excluding the people as a whole from any direct role in their government. In Paper 63 he says that while the classical republics were not totally unfamiliar some version of representation the true distinction between the classical democracy and the new American republic lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity from any share in the government. Unlike the citizens of any classical democracies and republics, the American citizenry will be only indirectly engaged in the politics and governance of their society to a much greater degree than in the classical republic. The American people will be absorbed in their private factional pursuits and they will become politically engaged chiefly in order to protect those factional pursuits and the private liberties they express.
It appears that Madison’s republican vision is based upon the assumption that virtue can be dispensed with, or mostly replaced by the checking and balancing of the competitive struggle of economic selfish interest groups. But this impression is very incomplete. It’s too simple, and one sided. And we must look now at the higher ingredient in Madison’s republican vision. For Madison has in Paper 10 additional argument for the new conception of representative government removed from the populous.
He praises such representative government not only for its ability to channel the selfish interest group struggle, but it can have a crucial elevating effect by putting the levers of power in the hands of a tiny minority of representatives elected by the rest. It has the effect of refining and enlarging the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it [the true interests of the country] to temporary or partial consideration.
Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonate to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose. For this we see that Madison does continue to count on virtue, on wisdom, on patriotism, on love of justice, as he says, but as found in the few of a tiny minority elected by the rest.
Madison reveals here that his new republicanism does not all together break with the classical republican tradition in its original aristocratic dimension, as opposed to its Montesquieuien more democratic dimension. Madison even indicates here that his new republican vision hopes to succeed better at achieving some measure of that original aristocratic aspiration, than the classical republics themselves ever did in practice.
But we must immediately note that Hamilton in the subsequent Papers 35 and 36 explains more concretely that the character of the representative elite expected in this new American system is rather unclassical. The new elite that the American system expects will be dominated by what Hamilton calls “the members of the learned professions,� which is a flattering term for what he means, namely lawyers. Who he expects to feel a neutrality to the rivalships among the different branches of industry. And be likely to be an impartial arbiter between them.
So the virtuous are not so much expected, as they were in the classical republican vision to be found among the farmers great and small. The virtuous in this new republican vision are expected to be much more sympathetic to commerce and to commercialism, to money making, to material acquisitiveness than were the elite as envisage in the classical republicanism.
Therefore I was very appreciative of this collection of twelve lectures that provide an easy to follow explanation of the debate between the anti-federalists and the the federalists. I grew up being taught that the U.S.Constitution was next to the Bible (almost) as being sacred. It's surprising to learn that its adoption was a close vote in many of the states, and that many of the leading politicians of the day opposed it. There are many examples of prophetic warnings made by the anti-federalists that subsequently came true. However, if the Constitution had not been approved surely many of the warning prophecies of the Federalist would have come true.
Frankly, it's miraculous they came up with a system that worked as well as it did. One has to remember that they didn't have any proven examples to follow. Of course they had the British parliamentary system as one model, but it was a monarchy and they knew for sure they didn't want that! Then there was the Dutch Republic and the Swiss Confederation but they had their deficiencies that were clearly pointed out by the Federalist Papers. Beyond that there were the examples of the ancient Greek and Roman republics. Anybody who has read "Plutarch's Lives" or "The Peloponnesian War" knows that those repulics were short lived and filled with intrigue.
French social commentator, Montesquieu, in 1748 had written a book titled "De l'esprit des lois (The Spirt of the Laws) in which he articulated the possible merits of republics and the means by which they could avoid many of the problems experienced by the ancient Greeks and Romans. Montesquieu had many good ideas such as separation of powers. However, he envisioned small republics populated by people of similar religion and culture and with minimal diversity of wealth. That model simply didn't fit the United States, and the anti-federalists feared that centralization of power in a federal government was moving in the wrong direction away from the model envisioned by Montesquieu.
It was the genius of James Madison (supported by Alexander Hamilton) to envision his concept of the Madisonian republic where a centralized government could be designed in such a way that the larger and more diverse the population, and the greater extent of the land within the country, the more stable and safe the country would be from the influence of mobs and despots. His point was that democracy was too prone to be self destructive at the local level and that the distancing of the central government from the local government increased the likelihood that the better types of representatives would be selected to represent the states at the federal level. The larger the population the less likely an unruly minority (or religion) could improperly influence the central government.
It has occurred to me that perhaps the development of instantaneous communications through the advent of the internet has diminished the effectiveness of the Madisonian republic model by creating virtual mobs and despots. This could perhaps explain the apparent increased polarization of modern societies. We need the wisdom of James Madison to suggest tweaks to the system to keep it functioning as intended.
This ends the review in my words. The rest of the text contained below are partial transcriptions of parts of Lectures 7 and 8. I include it here to provide an example of the nature and quality of the lectures. However, it is quite long so you the reader have my permission to stop reading at this point.
(this is an introductory paragraph is lifted from Lecture 8)
The anti-federalist following the classical republicanism are concerned to prevent or repress the spirit of faction from becoming prevalent in the citizenry. The anti-federalists are still guided by the ideal of a homogeneous and harmonious fraternal citizenry while the new Madisonian vision not only accepts faction but makes the spirit of faction an animating spirit of the republic.
(the following is from lecture 7)
Madison’s definition of faction in the 10th paper. “By a faction I understand a number of citizen’s, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse, passion or of interests adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent or aggregate interests of the community.�
Faction for Madison implies the predominance of passions and interest that moves groups of citizens in ways that threaten injury to the rights of others citizens or to the good of the whole community. It is crucial that we keep this precise and pejorative definition of faction firmly in mind as we follow Madison’s argument through the 10th Federalist Paper, or otherwise we won’t recognize how radical or shocking his argument is.
Madison proposes that this new constitution frames the first kind of republic in all of human history which has an “effective tendency� to break and control the violence of faction. And the new unclassical spirit of the Constitution becomes clearer when we follow Madison’s argument when we follow his argument how this breaking and controlling of the violence of faction is to be accomplished.
Madison begins by submitting that there are only two methods of curing the “mischiefs of faction.� The one by removing its causes. The other by controlling its effects.
The first method, removing its causes, means somehow preventing factions from becoming major factors in civic life. And there are only two ways of accomplishing this. The first is despotically doing away with liberty, and thus preventing citizens from being able to form politically effective interest groups which would attempt to dominate or exploit one another. And this suppression of groups is out of the question for Americans.
The second way is to that the path of the classical republican tradition, that is to try to make the population homogeneous in its outlook, a fraternal community. ... An this is what Madison makes clear is what the Constitution rejects as impracticable.
The proposed constitution is based upon the deep premise that any attempt to build a fraternal community of public spirited citizens, sharing the same outlook, is simply against human nature. As Madison put is, “The latent causes of faction are thus sewn in the nature of man, and we see them everywhere.� ... “The first object of government is the protection of these faculties from which the rights of property originate.�
And then Madison observes that when government succeeds in this prime purpose of protecting the acquisitive selfish faculties the necessary result is the emergence of different degrees and kinds of property and thereby great economic diversity and great economic inequality among the citizens. ....
This faculty for acquiring property are themselves unequal or unequal distributed and this necessarily divides society into mutually opposed parties or factions from the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.
But it is not only the competing economic interests that necessarily split human society into warring factions. Madison also stresses a zeal for differing opinions concerning religion as the first in a list of differences of opinions that always have this effect of creating factions of mutually hostile groups. The list also includes zealotry for conflicting political opinions. But also zealotry for all sorts of other opinions in theory and in practice. And in addition attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for preeminence in power. ....
... Madison’s conception is complex. He does not rule out the role of enlightened statesmen. But He insists that such statesmen rarely prevail over the immediate interests of which one party over another. ... He also recognizes strong bonds of friendship among Americans but he contends that such natural bonds are by no means strong enough to prevent the more natural emergence of fierce and mutually hurtful factional competition. Economic competition is the most powerful source of the natural hatred and animosity that overwhelms kinship and public spirit. ...
.. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and “involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of government.� This last phrase is pregnant and a most important phrase in the entire Federalist Papers. ... In their new solution to the problem of faction, the spirit of faction, what he call mutual animosity, is going to be accepted as a routine intrinsic and even necessary part of American republican government. Faction is going to be used as the primary tool to combat and control faction. The new American government will fight fire with fire. ...
The new American republic is to be the first republic in history that is going to tolerate and foster and in some measure depend on promoting faction. Mutually antagonistic competition among selfish groups seeking to exploit one another throughout society and inside the government itself. ...
Madison’s next step is to argue that once we have admitted this basic and rather grim truth we have to realize that in a republican society where the majority has the preponderant power, where the majority is the legitimate authority, the most serious danger is not from any minority faction but rather from the majority if and when it becomes united as a faction. For since the majority has the greater power and the greatest legitimacy, it can defeat in the long run and over all a check on a regular basis all minority factions. But who or what can check the majority if an when it becomes a united single faction?
The experience of the failure of classical republicanism shows that most likely and most pernicious single faction is most likely to be the poorer factions uniting against the wealthy who are always the fewer. The poorer faction often proceed under the leadership of demagogs to place the rights of property under such threats that either the economy is ruined or the property classes are compelled to fight back in ruinous civil conflict.
It’s this problem of majority faction that is the great problem of all past republics that has never before been solved. And this is why the cause of republicanism has fallen into disrepute. So its the solution of this problem, the problem of majoritarian faction which is then the great object of which our inquires are directed. ... By what means is this object obtainable? ...
Either the existence of the same faction or interest in the majority must be prevented or the majority having having such a passion or interest must be rendered by their number and local situation unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. In order for either of these effects to happen we must avoid setting up a pure democracy. What Madison means by democracy is “a society consisting of a small number of citizens who assemble and administer the government in person.� For is such a pure democratic society the assembled assembly has direct political power, and will easily coalesce into a unified faction. Some degree of mob rule guided by demagogues is the all too common fate of direct democracies.
Madison is here contradicting a basic premise of the Anti-Federalists. ...
What we must set up instead of democracies in the classic sense is a republic by which he means, “a government in which the scheme of representation takes place.� ... The two great differences between a democracy and a republic are: First, the delegation of the government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest. Second, the greater number of citizens and the great sphere of country over which [the republic] may be extended.
Here we see the heart of the new Madisonian republican vision. The new American constitution aims not a confederacies of small democratic participatory republics. But instead at one large extended mass republic where the people never can assemble to govern directly. And hence the majority can never unite and become directly oppressive of minorities and individuals.
But the most important consideration in this regard is not simply that the country’s territory and numbers will be too big for the majority to ever physically assemble in one place. More important is the fact that the majority will be so diverse, and so riven by conflicting factional interests trying to oppress one another, especially economic, that it will rarely share the same interests. Or when it does it will have great difficulty in becoming aware of that sharing.
As Madison puts it in his most important single statement explaining what, as he puts it, “what principally is to render factious combinations less to be dreaded� is to extend the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests. You make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens. Or if such a common mode exists it will be more difficult for all to feel it and discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.
Hence it clearly appears that the same advantage that the republic has over a democracy in controlling the effects of faction is enjoyed by a large [republic] over a small republic, is enjoyed by the union over the states composing it.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular states but it will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other states. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. ...
Madison places the Anti-Federalist argument on its head in two major respects. Where the Anti-Federalists follow classical republican theory in seeking homogeneity of the populous to avoid clashing of interests, Madison is saying that such clashing is the key to maintaining liberty in a republic.
(the following is from lecture 8)
........
The anti-federalist following the classical principles want to keep the reigns of government more directly in the hands of the people. And so they worry about the distancing of the representatives from the people and from the people’s control. But for Madison it just such removal of the representatives from their constituents that is one key to safe as well as effective government.
And Madison states even more emphatically and explicitly that the new constitution aims at the unclassical goal of excluding the people as a whole from any direct role in their government. In Paper 63 he says that while the classical republics were not totally unfamiliar some version of representation the true distinction between the classical democracy and the new American republic lies in the total exclusion of the people in their collective capacity from any share in the government. Unlike the citizens of any classical democracies and republics, the American citizenry will be only indirectly engaged in the politics and governance of their society to a much greater degree than in the classical republic. The American people will be absorbed in their private factional pursuits and they will become politically engaged chiefly in order to protect those factional pursuits and the private liberties they express.
It appears that Madison’s republican vision is based upon the assumption that virtue can be dispensed with, or mostly replaced by the checking and balancing of the competitive struggle of economic selfish interest groups. But this impression is very incomplete. It’s too simple, and one sided. And we must look now at the higher ingredient in Madison’s republican vision. For Madison has in Paper 10 additional argument for the new conception of representative government removed from the populous.
He praises such representative government not only for its ability to channel the selfish interest group struggle, but it can have a crucial elevating effect by putting the levers of power in the hands of a tiny minority of representatives elected by the rest. It has the effect of refining and enlarging the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens whose wisdom may best discern the true interests of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it [the true interests of the country] to temporary or partial consideration.
Under such a regulation it may well happen that the public voice pronounced by the representatives of the people will be more consonate to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves convened for the purpose. For this we see that Madison does continue to count on virtue, on wisdom, on patriotism, on love of justice, as he says, but as found in the few of a tiny minority elected by the rest.
Madison reveals here that his new republicanism does not all together break with the classical republican tradition in its original aristocratic dimension, as opposed to its Montesquieuien more democratic dimension. Madison even indicates here that his new republican vision hopes to succeed better at achieving some measure of that original aristocratic aspiration, than the classical republics themselves ever did in practice.
But we must immediately note that Hamilton in the subsequent Papers 35 and 36 explains more concretely that the character of the representative elite expected in this new American system is rather unclassical. The new elite that the American system expects will be dominated by what Hamilton calls “the members of the learned professions,� which is a flattering term for what he means, namely lawyers. Who he expects to feel a neutrality to the rivalships among the different branches of industry. And be likely to be an impartial arbiter between them.
So the virtuous are not so much expected, as they were in the classical republican vision to be found among the farmers great and small. The virtuous in this new republican vision are expected to be much more sympathetic to commerce and to commercialism, to money making, to material acquisitiveness than were the elite as envisage in the classical republicanism.
August 26, 2023
How many times did I say these words during my military career? …I will support and defend the Constitution Of the United States against all enemies, Foreign and domestic, that I bear true faith and allegiance to the same� After listening to these lectures, I have a much better understanding of the sacred duty captured in the oath. These lectures explain how brilliant the Founders were and why we have thrived as a nation founded on principles. We haven’t always lived up to the principles but we continue to try. A brief summary of the lectures. This course presents a clear explanation of the US style of government, a Republic-not a Democracy-and why it has worked. Five Stars
He clearly explains the difference between a Federalist and an Anti-Federalist, and how these two opposing views helped shape our form of governing:
Lecture One Significance and Historical Context: Very well done. Conveys the problems with the original Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the tensions which resulted in the 1787 convention to “propose changes�. That convention went way beyond its charter in secret and produced the current Constitution. Very interesting explanation of the process to approve the new Constitution.
Lecture Two Classical Republicanism: The Anti-Federalist side and what is classical Republicanism-the form of government (not the political party)
Lecture Three The Anti-Federalists� Republican Vision: another great lecture. The Anti-Federalists are on the defense but making good points. The Federalists are on the offense and also making good points.
Lecture Four The Argument over National Security. The Federalists want unlimited power to address future threats in national defense and foreign affairs. Anti-Federalists want to limit power to minimum at the start and only address greater powers when and if needed.
Lecture Five The Deep Difficulties in Each Position. One of the best lectures so far. Keep power at the local & state level or strong federal government. What dangers arise for each position. How can the states challenge an all-powerful national government? How can we avoid breaking up into small confederacies of little power?
Lecture Six Debating the Meaning of “Federalism�: Militia to National Guard, commerce power, taxation of income. Another great lecture, the Anti’s have a good estimation of the Feds� thirst for power. The Feds conceal their ultimate goals yet there is no middle ground that could be successful.
Lecture Seven The Madisonian Republic: While Madison does not deny the existence of deep bonds of kinship among Americans, he contends that such bonds are not strong enough to prevent the natural emergence of even stronger factional competition. This is the brilliant foundation of the Separation of Powers doctrine. There should be a competition of ideas and this clash will bring forth a better idea, as it should. Screw bipartisanship until the end.
Lecture Eight The Argument over Representation. Count on virtue but only as found in a tiny minority:
1. The new elite will be dominated by the “members of the learned professionals� (e.g., lawyers).
2. The virtuous in the new republican vision are expected to be more sympathetic to commerce and commercialism than the members of the elite as envisaged in classical republicanism. “Not the farmers�
Virtuous people: when the Anti-Federalists speak of elected representatives; they express distrust and fear of their likely corruption.
Lecture Nine Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 1. The Federalist view of separation of powers.
-Outstanding explanations of why we have our governmental structure. The House of Representatives is explicitly given the originating power over all expenditure of money; it also most directly represents the people and is supposed to have the most political clout.
Lecture Ten Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 2: The Anti-Federalist view of separation of powers, real balances and checks are needed.
Lecture Eleven The Supreme Court and Judicial Review: Federalists see reasonable grounds to place the country’s trust in selected individuals of superior moral and intellectual qualities, the Anti-Federalists see a dangerous opening to aristocratic subversion of the democratic republic.
Lecture Twelve The Bill of Rights: Madison’s Bill of Rights strengthened the new Constitution and even gave to the central government important additional power contrary to the intention of the Anti-Federalists
The Anti-Federalists want a Bill of Rights that taught people to see the federal government as a potential threat. Madison’s Bill of Rights reassured people their rights are respected and protected by the federal government.
He clearly explains the difference between a Federalist and an Anti-Federalist, and how these two opposing views helped shape our form of governing:
Lecture One Significance and Historical Context: Very well done. Conveys the problems with the original Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union and the tensions which resulted in the 1787 convention to “propose changes�. That convention went way beyond its charter in secret and produced the current Constitution. Very interesting explanation of the process to approve the new Constitution.
Lecture Two Classical Republicanism: The Anti-Federalist side and what is classical Republicanism-the form of government (not the political party)
Lecture Three The Anti-Federalists� Republican Vision: another great lecture. The Anti-Federalists are on the defense but making good points. The Federalists are on the offense and also making good points.
Lecture Four The Argument over National Security. The Federalists want unlimited power to address future threats in national defense and foreign affairs. Anti-Federalists want to limit power to minimum at the start and only address greater powers when and if needed.
Lecture Five The Deep Difficulties in Each Position. One of the best lectures so far. Keep power at the local & state level or strong federal government. What dangers arise for each position. How can the states challenge an all-powerful national government? How can we avoid breaking up into small confederacies of little power?
Lecture Six Debating the Meaning of “Federalism�: Militia to National Guard, commerce power, taxation of income. Another great lecture, the Anti’s have a good estimation of the Feds� thirst for power. The Feds conceal their ultimate goals yet there is no middle ground that could be successful.
Lecture Seven The Madisonian Republic: While Madison does not deny the existence of deep bonds of kinship among Americans, he contends that such bonds are not strong enough to prevent the natural emergence of even stronger factional competition. This is the brilliant foundation of the Separation of Powers doctrine. There should be a competition of ideas and this clash will bring forth a better idea, as it should. Screw bipartisanship until the end.
Lecture Eight The Argument over Representation. Count on virtue but only as found in a tiny minority:
1. The new elite will be dominated by the “members of the learned professionals� (e.g., lawyers).
2. The virtuous in the new republican vision are expected to be more sympathetic to commerce and commercialism than the members of the elite as envisaged in classical republicanism. “Not the farmers�
Virtuous people: when the Anti-Federalists speak of elected representatives; they express distrust and fear of their likely corruption.
Lecture Nine Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 1. The Federalist view of separation of powers.
-Outstanding explanations of why we have our governmental structure. The House of Representatives is explicitly given the originating power over all expenditure of money; it also most directly represents the people and is supposed to have the most political clout.
Lecture Ten Disputing Separation of Powers, Part 2: The Anti-Federalist view of separation of powers, real balances and checks are needed.
Lecture Eleven The Supreme Court and Judicial Review: Federalists see reasonable grounds to place the country’s trust in selected individuals of superior moral and intellectual qualities, the Anti-Federalists see a dangerous opening to aristocratic subversion of the democratic republic.
Lecture Twelve The Bill of Rights: Madison’s Bill of Rights strengthened the new Constitution and even gave to the central government important additional power contrary to the intention of the Anti-Federalists
The Anti-Federalists want a Bill of Rights that taught people to see the federal government as a potential threat. Madison’s Bill of Rights reassured people their rights are respected and protected by the federal government.
October 12, 2018
These lectures are a deeper dive into the foundation of the UNITED States. Prof Pangle adroitly summarizes the debates that raged (mostly in print) from October 1787 and April 1788 (Federalist Papers range) in which the discussions between the Federalists (most notably Madison, Hamilton and Jay...jointly known as Publius) and the Anti Federalists (notably Clinton, Winthrop, Adams and Yates) focused on what form of government should replace the Articles of Confederation. SPOILER ALERT: the Federalists won...sorta.
The debate resulted in the formation of a set of elaborate blueprints for our new republic, expertly created by James Madison, but largely designed by Alexander Hamilton, and appeared in the well-crafted Federalist Papers. From the opposing Anti Federalists a less clear agenda was proposed that limited the Federalist's strong central government, giving individual state governments closer controls. While the constitution was eventually approved by all thirteen states the issue of the absolute powers of state governments was not settled until the Civil War.
I found these lectures to be a great stimulus to read more carefully the "Federalist Papers", as well as "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787" (Max Farrand)...a daily log of the proceedings as recorded by Madison (mostly). In addition, I found the biography of Alexander Hamilton (Chernow) to be helpful in fleshing out the fundamental ideas of Hamilton's vision of this new form of government.
Highly recommended
The debate resulted in the formation of a set of elaborate blueprints for our new republic, expertly created by James Madison, but largely designed by Alexander Hamilton, and appeared in the well-crafted Federalist Papers. From the opposing Anti Federalists a less clear agenda was proposed that limited the Federalist's strong central government, giving individual state governments closer controls. While the constitution was eventually approved by all thirteen states the issue of the absolute powers of state governments was not settled until the Civil War.
I found these lectures to be a great stimulus to read more carefully the "Federalist Papers", as well as "The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787" (Max Farrand)...a daily log of the proceedings as recorded by Madison (mostly). In addition, I found the biography of Alexander Hamilton (Chernow) to be helpful in fleshing out the fundamental ideas of Hamilton's vision of this new form of government.
Highly recommended
December 9, 2017
The present review relates to the lecture series by Professor Thomas L. Pangle, available in video and audio from The Great Courses (The Teaching Company), which I watched on DVD in 2016. Notwithstanding the representations on the Amazon and Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ pages, I was unable to obtain the transcript (219 pages) of these video lectures through Amazon. I did, however, recently obtain it directly from The Great Courses.
Professor Pangle presents the debates between the Federalist and Antifederalists in an exemplary manner. He quotes amply from each side of the debate and shows how certain arguments eventually won out, including some of the Antifederalist arguments. His Lecture 11 on judicial review (transcript, 160-69) is especially compelling, as he examines Hamilton's nuanced views in The Federalist, responding to Antifederalist arguments. Hamilton's arguments for judicial review in The Federalist were later channeled by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Pangle's Lecture 7 on the Madisonian Republic is also outstanding, as are many other analyses throughout this course.
Professor Pangle is an expert in the history of political philosophy, and he shows how the various arguments of the Federalists and Antifederalists relate to that history, especially the political philosophy of Montesquieu and the views of the classical republicans of ancient Greece and Rome. Pangle, perhaps rightly, does not attempt to relate the eighteenth-century debate over the Constitution to later developments in American history, for example, the effect of the Industrial Revolution and advanced transportation and communications technology on federalism and, indeed, on the entire logic of Jefferson and the Antifederalists in favor of small and local government. That omission might leave some viewers and readers of these lectures with the misimpression that one can simply apply the debates of 1787-91 to today's circumstances. Jefferson himself remarked that one generation's understanding of constitutional and other law should not bind subsequent generations. With this caveat, I strongly recommend this lecture series, which is accessible not only to scholars but also to others genuinely interested in one of the most important debates in American history.
(originally posted July 6, 2016; revised December 8, 2017)
______________________________
Alan E. Johnson, a retired lawyer, is the author of The Electoral College: Failures of Original Intent and an Evaluation of Alternatives (2018, forthcoming) and The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (2015), among other publications in the fields of history, law, political science, and philosophy.
Professor Pangle presents the debates between the Federalist and Antifederalists in an exemplary manner. He quotes amply from each side of the debate and shows how certain arguments eventually won out, including some of the Antifederalist arguments. His Lecture 11 on judicial review (transcript, 160-69) is especially compelling, as he examines Hamilton's nuanced views in The Federalist, responding to Antifederalist arguments. Hamilton's arguments for judicial review in The Federalist were later channeled by Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Pangle's Lecture 7 on the Madisonian Republic is also outstanding, as are many other analyses throughout this course.
Professor Pangle is an expert in the history of political philosophy, and he shows how the various arguments of the Federalists and Antifederalists relate to that history, especially the political philosophy of Montesquieu and the views of the classical republicans of ancient Greece and Rome. Pangle, perhaps rightly, does not attempt to relate the eighteenth-century debate over the Constitution to later developments in American history, for example, the effect of the Industrial Revolution and advanced transportation and communications technology on federalism and, indeed, on the entire logic of Jefferson and the Antifederalists in favor of small and local government. That omission might leave some viewers and readers of these lectures with the misimpression that one can simply apply the debates of 1787-91 to today's circumstances. Jefferson himself remarked that one generation's understanding of constitutional and other law should not bind subsequent generations. With this caveat, I strongly recommend this lecture series, which is accessible not only to scholars but also to others genuinely interested in one of the most important debates in American history.
(originally posted July 6, 2016; revised December 8, 2017)
______________________________
Alan E. Johnson, a retired lawyer, is the author of The Electoral College: Failures of Original Intent and an Evaluation of Alternatives (2018, forthcoming) and The First American Founder: Roger Williams and Freedom of Conscience (2015), among other publications in the fields of history, law, political science, and philosophy.
August 25, 2023
3.5 stars. Thomas Pangle is the professor for these 12 lessons on the debate over ratification of the Constitution. Pangle speaks well and clearly with no distracting mannerisms. He is very knowledgeable about his subject matter, but can be a little dry at times.
One of the main ideas gained by listening to these lectures is how valuable the anti-federalists were in securing a Bill of Rights to the constitution. These lectures present the objections to the Constitution and show how those objections were met during the debate that went on in the newspapers of the time, men writing anonymously to each other and the reading public. Pangle presents the facts very well, although he is not a top tier lecturer, as he doesn't quite bring the subject matter to the next level, as the best Great Courses professors can. That may have more to do with the subject matter, however. A worthwhile series to listen to.
One of the main ideas gained by listening to these lectures is how valuable the anti-federalists were in securing a Bill of Rights to the constitution. These lectures present the objections to the Constitution and show how those objections were met during the debate that went on in the newspapers of the time, men writing anonymously to each other and the reading public. Pangle presents the facts very well, although he is not a top tier lecturer, as he doesn't quite bring the subject matter to the next level, as the best Great Courses professors can. That may have more to do with the subject matter, however. A worthwhile series to listen to.
December 25, 2020
Must read for all Americans. In fact, I think I'll read it again in a year or so.
Given the current political climate, I found it somewhat reassuring that cruel, anonymous sniping is not exclusive to present day America. Lacking electronic means, many of the founding fathers used pen names when publishing their pamphlets. And it was good to be reminded that tension and discord were designed into the system.
It was, however, disheartening to learn the level of reliance on virtue of elected officials.
Given the current political climate, I found it somewhat reassuring that cruel, anonymous sniping is not exclusive to present day America. Lacking electronic means, many of the founding fathers used pen names when publishing their pamphlets. And it was good to be reminded that tension and discord were designed into the system.
It was, however, disheartening to learn the level of reliance on virtue of elected officials.
August 4, 2023
With all of today’s political discourse regarding The Constitution it was interesting and informative to follow the discourse on the debate at the time. I would encourage all to listen to this. A believe I got it from Audible plus catalog. I’m not sure if still free but if not worth the credit.
I listened to this book on Audible.
I listened to this book on Audible.
April 16, 2022
Helping me understand the history of the Constitution of the United States of America. I recommend these lectures to people who wish to understand more about the Federalist, Anti-Federalist and the US Constitution.
October 30, 2022
Definitely worth a read if you're interested in this topic. There's a really good back and forth between the federalist and anti-federalist's culminating in the constitution, separation of powers, and finally, the Bill of Rights.
May 5, 2023
Well told overview of the key issues and context surrounding the us constitution. The anti-federalist and montesque are largely forgotten about today so this is refreshing. Author/narrator style is very approachable and informative.
April 7, 2024
We are in an age where history is constantly being re-written according to political and sociological agendas. It is important to study as much as we can, and to absorb not only as many perspectives as possible, but even more importantly, the facts on which these perspectives have been based.
June 15, 2020
Very relevant and thought provoking, especially right now.
December 23, 2020
History explained. The founding fathers debate over the Constitution is instructive for understanding our government, how it works and how it should work.
April 2, 2021
Nearly Everything those opposed to the constitution worried about has come to be.
June 19, 2022
Great class. Perhaps we need these classes on the telle
August 4, 2022
DNF. There are much better Great Courses out there on the American Constitution (American Ideals: Founding of a Republic of Virtue, Books that Matter: the Federalist Papers)
February 18, 2023
Very detailed review of the development of the US Constitution mostly from the Federalist Papers. I would have liked more spent on the Bill of Rights and less details of the Federalist Papers
April 11, 2016
A great book about the back-and-forth between Federalists and Anti-Federalists during the framing of America.
I remember some of the Great Debate from school, but this presentation was more to-the-point and engaging than I remember. The book shows both sides of the debate and portrays an active, heated, and productive discussion between the founders on some important topics. Many of those topics we're still discussing now. Many modern commentators, pundits, politicians, advocates, and clicktivists don't have a good understanding of the debate that formed the democratic republic that is America. I certainly didn't have a good understanding and I consider myself relatively informed.
One big take-away from this book is the Federalist view of the need for competition, debate, and power-struggle between the parties (in addition to the normally discussed 3 branches of government). The political climate turns off many people; I've heard people calling for more unity and less back-and-forth between the two parties, but the system was designed for just this tension. It also highlighted the profound differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the US and French Revolutions, and various views for the role of government.
This was a good read and helped illuminate long-term trends in American politics that have been around since the founding. A thorough understanding of the constitution would help many Americans wrap their heads around the modern issues.
Read (or better yet, listen to) this if you're an American or if you want to understand the founding of the first modern democratic republic.
I remember some of the Great Debate from school, but this presentation was more to-the-point and engaging than I remember. The book shows both sides of the debate and portrays an active, heated, and productive discussion between the founders on some important topics. Many of those topics we're still discussing now. Many modern commentators, pundits, politicians, advocates, and clicktivists don't have a good understanding of the debate that formed the democratic republic that is America. I certainly didn't have a good understanding and I consider myself relatively informed.
One big take-away from this book is the Federalist view of the need for competition, debate, and power-struggle between the parties (in addition to the normally discussed 3 branches of government). The political climate turns off many people; I've heard people calling for more unity and less back-and-forth between the two parties, but the system was designed for just this tension. It also highlighted the profound differences between the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, the US and French Revolutions, and various views for the role of government.
This was a good read and helped illuminate long-term trends in American politics that have been around since the founding. A thorough understanding of the constitution would help many Americans wrap their heads around the modern issues.
Read (or better yet, listen to) this if you're an American or if you want to understand the founding of the first modern democratic republic.
February 15, 2017
This is a really fascinating lecture series, iff you're really into American Jurisprudence. I am, so I thoroughly enjoyed it. This series is mostly about the Federalist vs. Anti-Federalist debates and how both sides influenced and affected the US Constitution. Highly recommend this if you're into such things.
February 1, 2017
The more I learn about America and the founding of the country, the more I understand the current political system. It is unbelieveable how we continue to have the same debates as these throughout time. These lectures provided unbiased and supported arguments for both sides of the federalist vs anti-federalist debate which leaves the reader/listener to make their own judgements. The lectures are well spoken and strongly supported which forces the reader to look beyond the ideals of the american system and focus on the reality of how to make it work. At the end of the lectures I am left contemplating the arguments which in turn challenge my current morals and civic support. I am forced to look at my chosen politics and closely examine the validity of how those could be accomplished and if they do fit into the ideals of the American way. I am left with a new respect for the American founding fathers and the great challenge of trying to create a nation of opportunity and freedom for all.
November 11, 2013
Very good exposition of the intricate debates between federalists and anti-federalists.
Even though the main problems were specific to the american situation at the time of foundation, still many of the points raised are of extreme importance for any political system (e.g. democracy and effective government, dynamics of power distribution in the system, the meaning of representation and limits of each wing in the government, the role of the judiciary branch and its relation to other parts of the government, etc).
Even though the main problems were specific to the american situation at the time of foundation, still many of the points raised are of extreme importance for any political system (e.g. democracy and effective government, dynamics of power distribution in the system, the meaning of representation and limits of each wing in the government, the role of the judiciary branch and its relation to other parts of the government, etc).
May 16, 2016
Read as parts of a review of references on the constitution. This is a more accessible read than Ratification although understandably mite attenuated. I think that an understanding of the history of the constitution is essential before arguing at the Chinese state dinner regarding the needs of a town.
March 18, 2010
Very analytical and in-depth look at peoples' thoughts and feelings of taking this big step with a new Constitution
December 2, 2012
Thoroughly enjoyed the lectures of this Great Course!
October 20, 2013
I can not express how amazing this is. EVERY American should read this regardless of political affiliation, religion, or interests. That's all I will say. Great!
June 14, 2015
Possibly my favorite "Great Courses" lecture.
Read
February 24, 2018An overview of what the anti-federalists were worried about.
Main points-
1. They were worried that military power would become centralized in the federal government, so they insisted that the constitution require state militias. Later this clause was amended and the state militia folded into the national guard, and thus military power was centralized in the federal government.
2. They were worried that the federal government would seek to over-reach it's mandate and expand, so they included a clause saying that the federal govt. could not impose an income tax. This clause was also amended.
3. They wanted a mix is direct representation of the people and of a professional political class that thought long-term and was not subject to bad incentives of quick election cycles, so they stipulated that senators should be elected by the state legislatures. This was amended in 1914, and now they are elected by direct vote- and are now subject to the same bad incentives as their peers in the house of representatives.
Main points-
1. They were worried that military power would become centralized in the federal government, so they insisted that the constitution require state militias. Later this clause was amended and the state militia folded into the national guard, and thus military power was centralized in the federal government.
2. They were worried that the federal government would seek to over-reach it's mandate and expand, so they included a clause saying that the federal govt. could not impose an income tax. This clause was also amended.
3. They wanted a mix is direct representation of the people and of a professional political class that thought long-term and was not subject to bad incentives of quick election cycles, so they stipulated that senators should be elected by the state legislatures. This was amended in 1914, and now they are elected by direct vote- and are now subject to the same bad incentives as their peers in the house of representatives.
Displaying 1 - 28 of 28 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.