David
Fri December 13, 2002 11:34am
|
French cruiser Justice.
French cruiser Justice.
|
|
David
Tue December 17, 2002 4:08pm
Rating: 10
|
Masses of Panamanians dem
Masses of Panamanians demonstrate near the Papal Nunciature, demanding that Manuel Noriega leave the Nunciature and be brought to justice. Hours after the demonstration, Noriega was on his way to the United States.
|
|
David
Mon July 25, 2005 11:58am
|
World War II Memorial
National WWII Memorial
Visiting the Memorial
The memorial opened to the public on April 29, 2004 and was dedicated one month later on May 29. It is located on 17th Street, between Constitution and Independence Avenues, and is flanked by the Washington Monument to the east and the Lincoln Memorial to the west. The memorial is now operated by the National Park Service and is open to visitors 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Authorization
President Clinton signed Public Law 103-32 on May 25, 1993, authorizing the American Battle Monuments Commission (ABMC) to establish a World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., or its environs. It will be the first national memorial dedicated to all who served during World War II and acknowledging the commitment and achievement of the entire nation.
The law also authorized the president to appoint a Memorial Advisory Board to offer advice to the ABMC on site selection and design of the memorial, as well as to perform its primary duty of promoting and encouraging private donations for the building of the memorial. The board was appointed in September 1994, and works under the chairmanship of Pete Wheeler, commissioner of veterans affairs of the state of Georgia.
Purpose
The memorial will honor the 16 million who served in the armed forces of the U.S. during World War II, the more than 400,000 who died, and the millions who supported the war effort from home. Symbolic of the defining event of the 20th Century, the memorial will be a monument to the spirit, sacrifice, and commitment of the American people to the common defense of the nation and to the broader causes of peace and freedom from tyranny throughout the world. It will inspire future generations of Americans, deepening their appreciation of what the World War II generation accomplished in securing freedom and democracy. Above all, the memorial will stand as an important symbol of American national unity, a timeless reminder of the moral strength and awesome power that can flow when a free people are at once united and bonded together in a common and just cause.
Site
The first step in establishing the memorial was the selection of an appropriate site. Congress provided legislative authority for siting the memorial in the prime area of the national capital, known as Area I, which includes the National Mall. The National Park Service, the Commission of Fine Arts, and the National Capital Planning Commission approved selection of the Rainbow Pool site at the east end of the Reflecting Pool between the Lincoln Memorial and the Washington Monument. President Clinton dedicated the memorial site during a formal ceremony on Veterans Day 1995.
Design
ABMC engaged the General Services Administration?s (GSA) Public Buildings Service to act as its agent to manage the memorial project. The design submitted by Friedrich St. Florian, an architect based in Providence, R.I., was selected as one of six semi-finalists in an open, national competition. Leo A Daly, an international architecture firm, assembled the winning team with St. Florian as the design architect. The team also includes George E. Hartman of Hartman-Cox Architects, Oehme van Sweden & Associates, sculptor Ray Kaskey, and stone carver and letterer Nick Benson. St. Florian?s memorial design concept was approved by the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission in the summer of 1998. The commissions approved the preliminary design in 1999, the final architectural design and several ancillary elements in 2000, granite selections in 2001, and sculpture and inscriptions in 2002 and 2003.
Fundraising Campaign
The memorial is funded primarily by private contributions. The fund-raising campaign was led by National Chairman Senator Bob Dole and National Co-Chairman Frederick W. Smith.
Senator Dole, a World War II veteran seriously wounded on the battlefield and twice decorated with the Bronze Star and Purple Heart, was the Republican nominee for president in 1996 and the longest-serving Republican Leader in the U.S. Senate.
Frederick W. Smith is chairman, president and chief executive officer of FedEx Corporation, a $17 billion global transportation and logistics holding company. He is a graduate of Yale and a former U.S. Marine Corps officer, and serves on the boards of various transport, industry and civic organizations.
The memorial received more than $195 million in cash and pledges. This total includes $16 million provided by the federal government.
Timeline
Construction began in September 2001, and the memorial opened to the public on April 29, 2004. The memorial will be dedicated on Saturday, May 29, 2004.
ABMC
The American Battle Monuments Commission is an independent, executive branch agency with 11 commissioners and a secretary appointed by the president. The ABMC administers, operates and maintains 24 permanent U.S. military cemeteries and 25 memorial structures in 15 countries around the world, including three memorials in the United States. The commission is also responsible for the establishment of other memorials in the U.S. as directed by Congress.
Chronology
In 1993, the Congress passed legislation authorizing the building of a National World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C., or its immediate environs. The authorizing legislation was signed into law by the President on May 25, 1993. The responsibility for designing and constructing the memorial was given to the American Battle Monuments Commission, an independent federal agency created by law in 1923. The memorial will honor all who served in the American armed services during World War II and the entire nation's contribution to the war effort. The following summary highlights key events in the history of the project.
1987 - 1993
Dec 10, '87 - Representative Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) introduces legislation to authorize establishing a memorial on federal land in the District of Columbia or its environs. Similar legislation was introduced in 1989, 1991 and 1993.
May 25, '93 - President Clinton signs Public Law 103-32 authorizing the American Battle Monuments Commission to establish a World War II Memorial in the District or its environs.
1994
Sep 30 - The President appoints a 12-member Memorial Advisory Board (MAB), as authorized in Public Law 103-32, to advise the ABMC in site selection and design, and to promote donations to support memorial construction.
Oct 6-7 - The House and Senate pass Joint Resolution 227 approving location of the World War II Memorial in the Capital?s monumental core area because of its lasting historic significance to the nation. The President signed the resolution into law on October 25th.
1995
Jan 20 - ABMC and MAB hold their first joint site selection session attended by representatives of the Commission of Fine Arts (CFA), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), the National Capital Memorial Commission (NCMC), the National Park Service (NPS), and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Seven potential sites are visited:
Capitol Reflecting Pool area (between 3rd Street and the Reflecting Pool)
Tidal Basin (northeast side, east of the Tidal Basin parking lot and west of the 14th Street Bridge access road)
West Potomac Park (between Ohio Drive and the northern shore of the Potomac River, northwest of the FDR Memorial site)
Constitution Gardens (east end, between Constitution Avenue and the Rainbow Pool)
Washington Monument grounds (at Constitution Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets, west of the Museum of American History)
Freedom Plaza (on Pennsylvania Avenue between 14th and 15th Streets)
Henderson Hall, adjacent to Arlington National Cemetery (Henderson Hall was dropped from consideration because of its unavailability).
Mar 2 - The ABMC and MAB unanimously select the Constitution Gardens site as the most appropriate one out of the six alternatives.
May 9 & Jun 20 - The NCMC holds public hearings on the site for the World War II Memorial with consideration given to both the Constitution Gardens site and the Capitol Reflecting Pool site on Third Street.
Jul 27 - The CFA concludes after a public hearing that the Constitution Gardens site would not be commensurate with the historical significance of World War II, and requests that further consideration be given to the Capitol Reflecting Pool and Freedom Plaza along with a new alternative, the traffic circle on Columbia Island on the Lincoln Memorial-Arlington Cemetery axis. The Rainbow Pool is discussed as a possible alternative site.
Aug 6 - The ABMC proposes to the chairmen of the CFA, NCPC and NPS that the Rainbow Pool site with space on both sides of the pool be studied as a replacement for the Constitution Gardens site.
Sep 19 - In a public meeting, the CFA unanimously approves the Rainbow Pool site with the understanding that design guidelines be developed in consultation with them.
Oct 5 - During a public meeting, the NCPC approves the Rainbow Pool site on the condition that the Mall?s east-west vista formed by the elm trees bordering the Reflecting Pool would be preserved.
Nov 11 - The President dedicates the memorial site in a formal ceremony that concludes the 50th Anniversary of World War II commemorations. A plaque marks the site as the future location of the World War II Memorial.
1996
Apr 19 - The ABMC and General Services Administration (GSA), acting as agent for the ABMC, announce a two-stage open design competition for the memorial that closed on Aug 12th.
Aug 15-16 - Four hundred and four entries are reviewed by a distinguished Evaluation Board that selects six competition finalists. The second stage competition closes on Oct 25th.
Oct 29 - A Design Jury composed of distinguished architects, landscape architects, architectural critics and WWII veterans review the designs of the six finalists.
Oct 30-31 - The Evaluation Board evaluates finalist design submissions and interviews the six design teams. Both the Design Jury and the Evaluation Board, independently of each other, recommend unanimously that the Leo A. Daly team with Friedrich St. Florian as design architect be selected. ABMC approves the recommendation on Nov 20th.
1997
Jan 17 - The President announces St. Florian?s winning memorial design during a White House ceremony.
Mar 19 - Senator Bob Dole is named National Chairman of the memorial campaign.
Jul 24 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves many elements of the design concept, but voices strong concern over the mass and scale and the interior space of the concept as presented. The CFA requests that the design be given further study and resubmitted at a later date, but unanimously reaffirms the Rainbow Pool site.
Jul 31 - In a public hearing, the NCPC reaffirms its approval of the Rainbow Pool site, but requests design modifications and an analysis of various environmental considerations prior to the commission's further action on a revised design concept.
Aug 19 - ABMC announces that Frederick W. Smith, chairman, president and chief executive officer of Federal Express Corporation, will team with Senator Dole as National Co-Chairman of the World War II Memorial Campaign.
1998
Apr 7 - ABMC approves the recommendation of its Site and Design Committee that St. Florian?s revised design concept be forwarded to the CFA, the NCPC and the District of Columbia?s Historic Preservation Office for their action.
May 21 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves the revised design concept.
Jul 9 - In a public hearing, the NCPC approves the revised design concept.
1999
Apr 21 - ABMC approves the recommendation of its Site and Design Committee that St. Florian?s preliminary design be forwarded to the CFA and NCPC for their action.
May 20 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves the memorial?s preliminary design.
Jun 3 - In a public hearing, the NCPC approves the memorial's preliminary design.
2000
Jul 20 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves the memorial?s final architectural design.
Sep 21 - In a public hearing, the NCPC approves the memorial?s final architectural design.
Nov 11 - A groundbreaking ceremony attended by 15,000 people is held at the memorial?s Rainbow Pool site.
Nov 16 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves several ancillary elements of the memorial: an information pavilion, a comfort station, an access road and a contemplative area.
Dec 14 - In a public hearing, the NCPC approves several ancillary elements of the memorial: an information pavilion, a comfort station, an access road and a contemplative area.
2001
Jan 23 - Construction permit issued by the National Park Service.
Mar 9 - Construction, which was to begin in March, is delayed indefinitely pending resolution of a lawsuit filed by a small opposition group in Washington, D.C., and a procedural issue involving the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), one of the agencies required by law to approve the memorial.
May 21-22 - The House and Senate pass legislation directing that the memorial be constructed expeditiously at the dedicated Rainbow Pool site on the National Mall in a manner consistent with previous approvals and permits. President Bush signed the legislation into law (Public Law 107-11) on Memorial Day, May 28th.
Jun 7 - The General Services Administration, acting as agent for the American Battle Monuments Commission, awards a $56 million construction contract to the joint venture of Tompkins Builders and Grunley-Walsh Construction.
Jun 21 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves the granite selections for the memorial.
Jul 3 - In a public hearing, the NCPC approves the granite selections for the memorial.
Aug 27 - Tompkins/Grunley-Walsh begin site preparation work at the memorial's Rainbow Pool site on the National Mall. Construction begins one week later.
2002
Mar 21 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves designs for flagpoles and announcement piers at the ceremonial entrance, and artistic enhancements to the field of gold stars. A proposed announcement stone design was not approved.
Apr 4 - In a public hearing, the NCPC approves designs for flagpoles and announcement piers at the ceremonial entrance and an announcement stone at the east memorial plaza, and artistic enhancements to the field of gold stars.
Jul 18 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves concepts for 24 bas-relief sculpture panels, and requests that the announcement stone be designed for the ceremonial entrance of the memorial rather than the proposed location on the plaza.
Oct 17 ? In a public hearing, the CFA approves the redesigned announcement stone at the ceremonial entrance, and endorses the thematic content of proposed inscriptions but recommends minor adjustments in their presentation.
Nov 21 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves inscriptions for the memorial.
2003
Apr 22 - In a public hearing, the CFA approves inscriptions for the memorial.
2004
Apr 29 - The National World War II Memorial opens to the public.
May 29 - The National World War II Memorial is formally dedicated in a ceremony that draws 150,000 people.
Nov 1 - The memorial becomes part of the National Park System when it is transferred from the American Battle Monuments Commission to the National Park Service, which assumes responsibility for its operations and maintenance.
National World War II Memorial Inscriptions
The following inscriptions are inscribed in the National World War II Memorial on the Mall in Washington, D.C. The inscriptions are presented by location.
Announcement Stone
HERE IN THE PRESENCE OF WASHINGTON AND LINCOLN,
ONE THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY FATHER AND THE OTHER THE
NINETEENTH CENTURY PRESERVER OF OUR NATION, WE HONOR
THOSE TWENTIETH CENTURY AMERICANS WHO TOOK UP THE STRUGGLE
DURING THE SECOND WORLD WAR AND MADE THE SACRIFICES TO
PERPETUATE THE GIFT OUR FOREFATHERS ENTRUSTED TO US:
A NATION CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY AND JUSTICE.
Flagpoles
AMERICANS CAME TO LIBERATE, NOT TO CONQUER,
TO RESTORE FREEDOM AND TO END TYRANNY
Eastern Corners
PEARL HARBOR
DECEMBER 7, 1941, A DATE WHICH WILL LIVE IN INFAMY?NO
MATTER HOW LONG IT MAY TAKE US TO OVERCOME THIS
PREMEDITATED INVASION, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE, IN THEIR
RIGHTEOUS MIGHT, WILL WIN THROUGH TO ABSOLUTE VICTORY.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
THEY HAVE GIVEN THEIR SONS TO THE MILITARY SERVICES. THEY
HAVE STOKED THE FURNACES AND HURRIED THE FACTORY WHEELS.
THEY HAVE MADE THE PLANES AND WELDED THE TANKS,
RIVETED THE SHIPS AND ROLLED THE SHELLS.
President Franklin D. Roosevelt
WOMEN WHO STEPPED UP WERE MEASURED AS CITIZENS OF THE NATION,
NOT AS WOMEN?THIS WAS A PEOPLE?S WAR, AND EVERYONE WAS IN IT.
Colonel Oveta Culp Hobby
THEY FOUGHT TOGETHER AS BROTHERS-IN-ARMS.
THEY DIED TOGETHER AND NOW THEY SLEEP SIDE BY SIDE.
TO THEM WE HAVE A SOLEMN OBLIGATION.
Admiral Chester W. Nimitz
Southern Walls
BATTLE OF MIDWAY JUNE 4-7, 1942
THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO WIN. YET THEY DID, AND IN DOING SO THEY CHANGED
THE COURSE OF A WAR?EVEN AGAINST THE GREATEST OF ODDS, THERE IS
SOMETHING IN THE HUMAN SPIRIT ? A MAGIC BLEND OF SKILL, FAITH AND
VALOR ? THAT CAN LIFT MEN FROM CERTAIN DEFEAT TO INCREDIBLE VICTORY.
Walter Lord, Author
THE WAR?S END
TODAY THE GUNS ARE SILENT. A GREAT TRAGEDY HAS ENDED. A GREAT
VICTORY HAS BEEN WON. THE SKIES NO LONGER RAIN DEATH ? THE SEAS
BEAR ONLY COMMERCE ? MEN EVERYWHERE WALK UPRIGHT IN THE
SUNLIGHT. THE ENTIRE WORLD IS QUIETLY AT PEACE.
General Douglas MacArthur
Northern Walls
WE ARE DETERMINED THAT BEFORE THE SUN SETS ON THIS TERRIBLE STRUGGLE
OUR FLAG WILL BE RECOGNIZED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD AS A SYMBOL OF
FREEDOM ON THE ONE HAND AND OF OVERWHELMING FORCE ON THE OTHER.
General George C. Marshall
D-DAY JUNE 6, 1944
YOU ARE ABOUT TO EMBARK UPON THE GREAT CRUSADE TOWARD
WHICH WE HAVE STRIVEN THESE MANY MONTHS. THE EYES OF
THE WORLD ARE UPON YOU?I HAVE FULL CONFIDENCE IN YOUR
COURAGE, DEVOTION TO DUTY AND SKILL IN BATTLE.
General Dwight D. Eisenhower
Western Corners
OUR DEBT TO THE HEROIC MEN AND VALIANT WOMEN IN THE SERVICE
OF OUR COUNTRY CAN NEVER BE REPAID. THEY HAVE EARNED OUR
UNDYING GRATITUDE. AMERICA WILL NEVER FORGET THEIR SACRIFICES.
President Harry S Truman
THE HEROISM OF OUR OWN TROOPS?WAS MATCHED BY THAT
OF THE ARMED FORCES OF THE NATIONS THAT FOUGHT BY OUR
SIDE?THEY ABSORBED THE BLOWS?AND THEY SHARED TO THE
FULL IN THE ULTIMATE DESTRUCTION OF THE ENEMY.
President Harry S Truman
Southern Fountain Copings
CHINA * BURMA * INDIA SOUTHWEST PACIFIC CENTRAL PACIFIC NORTH PACIFIC
PEARL HARBOR * WAKE ISLAND * BATAAN CORREGIDOR * CORAL SEA *
MIDWAY * GUADALCANAL * NEW GUINEA * BUNA * TARAWA *
KWAJALEIN * ATTU * SAIPAN TINIAN GUAM * PHILIPPINE SEA * PELELIU *
LEYTE GULF * LUZON * MANILA * IWO JIMA * OKINAWA * JAPAN
Northern Fountain Copings
NORTH AFRICA SOUTHERN EUROPE WESTERN EUROPE CENTRAL EUROPE
BATTLE OF THE ATLANTIC * MURMANSK RUN * TUNISIA *
SICILY SALERNO ANZIO ROME PO VALLEY * NORMANDY *
ST.LO * AIR WAR IN EUROPE * ALSACE * RHINELAND *
HUERTGEN FOREST * BATTLE OF THE BULGE *
REMAGEN BRIDGE * GERMANY
Southern and Northern Arches
1941 ? 1945 VICTORY ON LAND VICTORY AT SEA VICTORY IN THE AIR
Freedom Wall ? Field of Gold Stars
HERE WE MARK THE PRICE OF FREEDOM
|
|
David
Fri August 5, 2005 5:00am
|
Breese, Lieut. Col. Sidne
Breese, Lieut. Col. Sidney. U. S. Senator, Chief Justice.
|
|
David
Tue August 30, 2005 12:50pm
|
Federalist Papers, No. 10
Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)
The Federalist Papers, were a series of 85 essays written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison between October 1787 and May 1788. The essays were published anonymously, under the pen name "Publius," primarily in two New York state newspapers of the time: The New York Packet and The Independent Journal.
They were written to urge citizens of New York to support ratification of the proposed United States Constitution. Significantly, the essays explain particular provisions of the Constitution in detail. It is for this reason, and because Hamilton and Madison were members of the Constitutional Convention, that the Federalist Papers are often used today to help understand the intentions of those drafting the Constitution.
A bound edition of the essays, with revisions and corrections by Hamilton, was published in 1788 by printers J. and A. McLean. A later edition, published by printer Jacob Gideon in 1818, with revisions and corrections by Madison, was the first to identify each essay by its author's name. Because of the essays? publishing history, the assignment of authorship, numbering, and exact wording may vary with different editions of The Federalist.
The essays featured here are Federalist No. 10 and Federalist No. 51. The former, written by James Madison, refuted the belief that it was impossible to extend a republican government over a large territory. It also discussed special interest groups. The later emphasized the importance of checks and balances within a government.
Transcript of Federalist Papers, No. 10 & No. 51 (1787-1788)
The Federalist Paper No. 10
The Same Subject Continued: The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
The Federalist No. X
To the People of the State of New York:
AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.
By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.
There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.
There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.
It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.
The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. 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.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. 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 the government.
No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.
It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.
The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.
If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.
By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.
From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.
A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.
The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.
The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:
In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.
In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.
It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.
The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. 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 motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.
Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic,--is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.
The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but 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. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.
In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.
PUBLIUS.
The Federalist Paper No. 51
The Structure of the Government Must Furnish the Proper Checks and Balances Between the Different Departments
The Federalist No. 51
To the People of the State of New York:
TO WHAT expedient, then, shall we finally resort, for maintaining in practice the necessary partition of power among the several departments, as laid down in the Constitution? The only answer that can be given is, that as all these exterior provisions are found to be inadequate, the defect must be supplied, by so contriving the interior structure of the government as that its several constituent parts may, by their mutual relations, be the means of keeping each other in their proper places. Without presuming to undertake a full development of this important idea, I will hazard a few general observations, which may perhaps place it in a clearer light, and enable us to form a more correct judgment of the principles and structure of the government planned by the convention.
In order to lay a due foundation for that separate and distinct exercise of the different powers of government, which to a certain extent is admitted on all hands to be essential to the preservation of liberty, it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others. Were this principle rigorously adhered to, it would require that all the appointments for the supreme executive, legislative, and judiciary magistracies should be drawn from the same fountain of authority, the people, through channels having no communication whatever with one another. Perhaps such a plan of constructing the several departments would be less difficult in practice than it may in contemplation appear. Some difficulties, however, and some additional expense would attend the execution of it. Some deviations, therefore, from the principle must be admitted. In the constitution of the judiciary department in particular, it might be inexpedient to insist rigorously on the principle: first, because peculiar qualifications being essential in the members, the primary consideration ought to be to select that mode of choice which best secures these qualifications; secondly, because the permanent tenure by which the appointments are held in that department, must soon destroy all sense of dependence on the authority conferring them.
It is equally evident, that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others, for the emoluments annexed to their offices. Were the executive magistrate, or the judges, not independent of the legislature in this particular, their independence in every other would be merely nominal. But 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 provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.
A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions. This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State. But it is not possible to give to each department an equal power of self-defense. In republican government, the legislative authority necessarily predominates. The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit. It may even be necessary to guard against dangerous encroachments by still further precautions. As the weight of the legislative authority requires that it should be thus divided, the weakness of the executive may require, on the other hand, that it should be fortified.
An absolute negative on the legislature appears, at first view, to be the natural defense with which the executive magistrate should be armed. But perhaps it would be neither altogether safe nor alone sufficient. On ordinary occasions it might not be exerted with the requisite firmness, and on extraordinary occasions it might be perfidiously abused. May not this defect of an absolute negative be supplied by some qualified connection between this weaker department and the weaker branch of the stronger department, by which the latter may be led to support the constitutional rights of the former, without being too much detached from the rights of its own department? If the principles on which these observations are founded be just, as I persuade myself they are, and they be applied as a criterion to the several State constitutions, and to the federal Constitution it will be found that if the latter does not perfectly correspond with them, the former are infinitely less able to bear such a test.
There are, moreover, two considerations particularly applicable to the federal system of America, which place that system in a very interesting point of view. First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments. Hence a double security arises to the rights of the people. The different governments will control each other, at the same time that each will be controlled by itself. Second. It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests necessarily exist in different classes of citizens. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.
There are but two methods of providing against this evil: the one by creating a will in the community independent of the majority that is, of the society itself; the other, by comprehending in the society so many separate descriptions of citizens as will render an unjust combination of a majority of the whole very improbable, if not impracticable. The first method prevails in all governments possessing an hereditary or self-appointed authority. This, at best, is but a precarious security; because a power independent of the society may as well espouse the unjust views of the major, as the rightful interests of the minor party, and may possibly be turned against both parties. The second method will be exemplified in the federal republic of the United States. Whilst all authority in it will be derived from and dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into so many parts, interests, and classes of citizens, that the rights of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from interested combinations of the majority.
In a free government the security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests, and in the other in the multiplicity of sects. The degree of security in both cases will depend on the number of interests and sects; and this may be presumed to depend on the extent of country and number of people comprehended under the same government. This view of the subject must particularly recommend a proper federal system to all the sincere and considerate friends of republican government, since it shows that in exact proportion as the territory of the Union may be formed into more circumscribed Confederacies, or States oppressive combinations of a majority will be facilitated: the best security, under the republican forms, for the rights of every class of citizens, will be diminished: and consequently the stability and independence of some member of the government, the only other security, must be proportionately increased. Justice is the end of government. It is the end of civil society. It ever has been and ever will be pursued until it be obtained, or until liberty be lost in the pursuit. In a society under the forms of which the stronger faction can readily unite and oppress the weaker, anarchy may as truly be said to reign as in a state of nature, where the weaker individual is not secured against the violence of the stronger; and as, in the latter state, even the stronger individuals are prompted, by the uncertainty of their condition, to submit to a government which may protect the weak as well as themselves; so, in the former state, will the more powerful factions or parties be gradnally induced, by a like motive, to wish for a government which will protect all parties, the weaker as well as the more powerful.
It can be little doubted that if the State of Rhode Island was separated from the Confederacy and left to itself, the insecurity of rights under the popular form of government within such narrow limits would be displayed by such reiterated oppressions of factious majorities that some power altogether independent of the people would soon be called for by the voice of the very factions whose misrule had proved the necessity of it. In the extended republic of the United States, and among the great variety of interests, parties, and sects which it embraces, a coalition of a majority of the whole society could seldom take place on any other principles than those of justice and the general good; whilst there being thus less danger to a minor from the will of a major party, there must be less pretext, also, to provide for the security of the former, by introducing into the government a will not dependent on the latter, or, in other words, a will independent of the society itself. It is no less certain than it is important, notwithstanding the contrary opinions which have been entertained, that the larger the society, provided it lie within a practical sphere, the more duly capable it will be of self-government. And happily for the REPUBLICAN CAUSE, the practicable sphere may be carried to a very great extent, by a judicious modification and mixture of the FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.
PUBLIUS.
|
|
|
The Patriot Files Forums
