Date sent:        Fri, 26 Apr 1996 14:14:08 -0600

Name: FED31.TXT 
Uploader: John Pozadzides 
EMail: johnpoz@ix.netcom.com 
Language: English 
Subject: American Federalism 
Title: Discussion of Federalist No. 31 
Grade: 94%
System: University 
Age: 25
Country: US
Comments: 
Where I got Evil House of Cheat Address: Newsgroup


 Publius, in the Federalist No. 31, argues effectively against any limits upon the federal
 government save for, "...a regard to the public good and to the sense of the people."  In
 fact, Publius is so opposed to the idea of limiting the power and authority of the federal
 government, that he and Malcom X would have agreed splendidly on the catch phrase, "...by
 any means necessary...." Publius' argument that, "...the means ought to be proportioned to
 the end..." sums and simplifies the entire argument at hand.  To what extent should
 governmental power be unlimited?  To an extent equal to the task it is asked to accomplish.
  If one were to seek justice, the government should be able to provide laws, judges and
 consequences.  If one were to seek assistance, the government should be able to provide
 help, comfort or relief.  And should one ask for protection, the government must possess
 the ability to attack, defend and preserve life. In short, it is as necessary to provide
 the government with the means to accomplish the tasks it is assigned- as it is to provide
 grain to a farmer that is expected to grow wheat.  Therefor, the logical limit to
 governmental power should be easily calculated by determining the uppermost limit of what
 might be required to perform the most serious task it is charged with.  Arguably, this task
 could be assumed to be national defense. Given a serious enough threat to national defense,
 it is foreseeable that a time might come when the government would have to utilize all of
 the nations' resources to defend it's own borders and protect it's own citizens.  In that
 case, the government would need the right to take land, institute martial law, and even
 institute a draft.  Certainly a government could ask no more of an individual than to give
 all of his possessions and even his life.  No reasonable person would argue that the
 citizens of any nation would be better off if the borders were left defenseless with
 intruders knocking on the door. The question is not whether or not a government requires
 unlimited powers, but whether or not it is wise to then give unlimited power to it.  After
 all, it would seem reasonable to assume that putting all of your eggs in one basket is
 dangerous.  Publius points out, 
"I repeat what I have observed in substance in another place that all observations founded
upon the danger of usurpation ought to be referred to the composition and structure of the
government not to the nature or extent of its powers."  So if you might one day have to
carry all your eggs at one time, make sure you consider all the possible perils and design a
basket capable of surviving them.
 In continuing this train of thought, a government with unlimited powers has the ability to
 and runs the risk of abusing its powers.  However, Publius' overriding theme throughout the
 Federalist Papers has been that the people of America will choose the brightest and most
 worthy representatives.  And that must negate this concern.  In Federalist 55 Publius says,
 
"I am unable to conceive that the people of America in their present temper, or under any
circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the
choice of sixty-five or an hundred men, who would be desposed to form and pursue a scheme of
tyranny or treachery."
 Finally, it all boils down to one simple point:  eventually the people must put their trust
 somewhere.  If the government is to be charged with the most serious of tasks, it must be
 provided with enough power to complete them.  Likewise, if the people are really capable of
 choosing the best and the brightest from among themselves to rule, then who is more
 trustworthy then those chosen?
