1. According to John Locke, what is political power and where does it come from? Does political power exist by nature? Are there types of power/rule which exist by nature? According to John Locke, why would people want to leave the state of nature? What three characteristics in a state outside of government contribute to insecurity of Men’s rights?
Political power, according to John Locke, is “the right to make laws for the protection and regulation of property.” Locke explains that for political power to be effective or for the laws to work, there must be public acceptance. Acceptance occurs when laws have the interest of public good. Locke explains that legitimate political power comes from the citizens, who enter into a social contract with the superiors. Through the contract, the citizens empower the superior by surrendering their rights to govern themselves to the superior. However, political power can also come from a state of war. In this case, there is forceful acquisition of political power. Thus, the superior forceful takes the right for self governance from the subjects. There is no common authority in the state of war, making the political power that comes through the method illegitimate.
Locke’s state of nature shows that there is power or rule that exists by nature. Men are born powerful, and Locke alludes to the story of Adam, who God gave the authority to control all the other creations. In a state of nature, man’s wields his power and actions according to the natural law. Something that is important in the state of nature, as Locke explains, is that there is the aspect of self governance as man is free from any control by another man (superior).
People would not want to live in a state of nature, and this why they surrender their rights to the superiors. In self governance by the law of nature, there is absolute freedom of living and acting as a person thinks is appropriate. There is no control and protection of property. Another characteristic of the state of nature is that no human is interested in protecting his own property or that of the neighbor, as there is no collective responsibility or common law that governs and protects the property. Without government, therefore, man’s property rights are insecure, and this is what informs the social contract that leads to the legitimate political power/government.
2. Why do the American people trace their birth to July 4, 1776 (the day the Continental Congress endorsed the declaration of independence)? What are the three core self-evident truths contained in the second paragraph of the declaration of independence? Explain the meaning of each truth and how they are interrelated.
July 4, 1776 is an important day to Americans, and they trace their birth to the day because it is when the Continental Congress endorsed the declaration of America as independent. The endorsement was supposed to happen on July 2, 1776, when the Continental voted the declaration. Although the congress voted on America’s independence on July 2nd, 1776, the declaration delayed for two days and it occurred on July forth when the congress signed the declaration of America’s independence. July 4th, 1976, therefore, marks the official independence of America, and not July 2nd 1776 as many people believe.
The three “core self-evident truths” that are found in the second paragraph of the declaration of USA’s independence are: “That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; and that among these (rights) are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” The first truth is all men are naturally equal. No man has more rights than the other, by virtue of undergoing the same natural process of birth. The second truth means that there are rights that are natural, and which people acquire by birth. The natural rights require great respect without any manipulation, as manipulation of natural rights means controlling them. The third truth states the rights (according to the constitution) which people acquire naturally. Everybody has equal rights to life, freedom (liberty), and the pursuit of happiness. The truths have interrelationships in that one truth presupposes the other. Creation, which God does equally to all humans, is the condition for getting the unalienable rights. The third truth identifies the rights which everybody is entitled to equally.
3. According to “Vindicating the Founders”, what are the three claims made against the founders in regards to their statement that “All men are created equal”? Give examples of how the words and deeds of the prominent founders contradict this claim. Why is the question of whether the founders wanted to include black men and women in the statement “all men are created equal” so important?
Modern scholars have made three claims against the claim by the Founders of America that “all men are created equal”. The first claim is that the founders did not really believe that all men are created equally, despite expressing the statement in their speeches. Secondly, some scholars claim that the Founders actually believed that all men are created equal. However, they did not understand what being created equally meant. The final claim, which has come from modern scholars, is that the founders believed in equality for all, and that they understood the meaning of the principle. However, they betrayed the principle intentionally.
The founding fathers of America kept on talking about the principle of equality for every person. On the surface, going by their words, the founders were seen to emphasize on the principle of equality for all. However, their actions failed to show their faithfulness to the principle. Abraham Lincoln, for example, said that “America was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”. However, in the same country where the founding fathers emphasized on equality for all through creation, slavery thrived. The blacks were also treated racially, and women did not have equal access to education, among other rights, as men. There is the opinion that when the founders talked about equality for all, they excluded the slaves, the blacks, women, except that they never said it. These groups were not included in the term “men”. Jefferson is a founding father who held a controversial belief that slaves were not human beings. Jefferson, for example, acted in 1779 by proposing a law that would emancipate Virginia gradually.
The question of the willingness of the founders to include blacks and women in the phrase “all men are created equal” is important because it gives the insight to the problems that certain groups suffered in the country’s history. Logically, the founders understood the meaning of the expression. However, they acted against it because of their personal beliefs that did not support the equal treatment of all groups.
4. According to Locke, how do the duties of the church and the commonwealth differ? In what ways do they overlap? What are the government’s duties concerning toleration? What was the prominent view during the Founding era on the meaning of free exercise of religion?
The duties of the church and the commonwealth differ to the extent that the church’s function is to bring worshipers who share a common faith together, while the commonwealth’s function is to preserve and advance civil rights. There are certain functions that are beyond the control of the commonwealth. Locke discusses, for instance, that a magistrate does not have the power to control the spiritual faith of an individual. The laws which the commonwealth use to govern the society do not include governing the aspects of the soul. The membership of a church is voluntary. A member joins by virtue of sharing the same faith. Locke explains that nobody inherits the membership to a church. If someone finds a contradictory faith in a church, he freely moves from it and can join another church. The case with the membership of the commonwealth is different. An individual has to respect the laws of the land where he or she is born. If one finds the laws improper, he has no option of migrating to another country.
The church and the commonwealth serve people at different levels. However, there is an overlap between them because in both cases, there are laws. The laws govern the conducts of their members. The ecclesiastical laws of the church do not use force. On the contrary, the laws of the commonwealth have the conditionality of non-violation. If a member of a commonwealth violates the laws, the judiciary, which is the interpreter of the laws, punishes the individual, for example by jailing. On the other hand, the ecclesiastical laws exist with the objective of making the members of the church to get eternal life. Judgment of violation of the laws is not in the hands of man, but God is the one who judges the members.
Despite the differences between the church and the government/commonwealth, there are certain practices that the government does not tolerate in the church. Although the church serves soul matters, the commonwealth cannot tolerate a practice like making human sacrifices, for example sacrificing babies. Such sacrifices violate the laws of the commonwealth. The prominent view in relation to free exercise of religion during the founding era was that an individual is free to choose the religion to belong to. An individual belongs to a religion through his or her faith. No rule, therefore, should restrict an individual to a specific religion.
5. Explain Jefferson, Rush, and Webster’s views on education. How is education relative to the regime type? Why did they view education as important? Who did they argue should receive an education, and why? What are the most important subjects that education should extend to? Why did they emphasize the importance of these particular subjects?
Education has the role of illuminating the minds of people about historical facts of their countries and the laws of their lands, according to Jefferson. History, according to Jefferson, is an important subject because it enables learners to understand “the experience of other ages and countries”. The historical understanding of governance issues empowers people to know ambition “in all its shapes”, so that they can use their intellectual powers to fight unsupportive ambitions. Education is important for all citizens irrespective of their races, gender, or social status.
Education, according to Rush, gets a new meaning when regimes change. America’s education, for example, changed with the end of colonialism. Citizens must conform to the education that their new regimes create. Furthermore, citizens must have a sense of patriotism towards their own education. They should like their education more than foreign education. The uniformity of education remains important to a country even if it has people from different countries. Uniformity of education in a country enables the system to produce citizens with uniform perceptions towards the government, enhancing peaceful leadership. Religion is the most important subject, according to Rush, because without the subject, there is no virtue, and by extension, there is no liberty. History and Chronology are also important subjects, because they give citizens a good understanding about their past and how it has developed. They, therefore, foster a sense of patriotism.
Webster perceives that a country’s education should give the citizens a better understanding of its own past, and not the past of other countries. Relevance of ideas in the books that a country uses in its education system is an important thing. The relevant content only, especially about the country, should manifest in the books. Webster explains that from his past observations, the education of a country must also focus on the principles of governance. Citizens must understand the good forms of governance so that their education helps them to choose the right kinds of authority, for their prosperity. Law is an important subject according to Webster, especially in republican governments. Teaching citizens the law of the country empowers them to become law abiding citizens.
6. Explain how America’s constitutionalism is grounded on the principles of the Declaration of Independence. What was the leading goal of the constitutional framers? What was the goal of the Federalist papers? According to Federalist No.9, what had history shown about democracies and why did Publius argue that America would succeed even though all the past democracies had failed.
America’s constitutionalism is grounded on the principles of the declaration of the country’s independence. First, the constitution guarantees equal rights to all the citizens of America. The constitution does not state that a black person or a woman does not have equal rights as other people. The constitution is non-committal on the races, gender, and social status that should receive ill treatment. Every member of the nation receives equal entitlement to the rights. The laws of the American constitution apply with equality on any human who lives in the country. What defines the law is nation’s boundary, and not race, class, or gender. The bill of rights in the constitution protects all the citizens equally. Any violation the principle of equality does not occur within the constitution. The people who make such violations base them on their personal stances and translations of the principles. The right to life, liberty, and looking for happiness, are in the constitution, and they were the principles of the declaration.
The main goal of the framers of the constitution was to use the legal document to solve the immediate and future challenges of the nation. The vision of the framers was a better country for all humans in America. The declaration of the rights in the constitution is general, not specifying any group that should not receive equal rights. The aim of the Federalist papers was to increase the public support for the constitution. The publication of the papers began after the endorsement of the constitution. The papers increased public awareness about the civil goods or benefits in the constitution.
The reason the past regimes had failed was because of lack of a constitution that would defend the public good of all the citizens. According to Publius, however, the future democracies would succeed because the constitution would spread uniformity of governance in all the states. All the citizens would be entitled to equal rights and they would receive equal treatment. The constitution would also enhance democracy in its real application, as citizens would hold the power to elect their leaders. The changes, among others, would promote a democratic society in which good governance would thrive.
7. What is a faction according to James Madison in the Federalist paper no. 10? When is a faction a problem in a democratic government? Why did Madison argue that a system of representation (as opposed to direct democracy) would help control the effects of majority faction? Briefly explain Madison’s praise of federalism (division of power between the national and state governments) in Federalist No.10?
Madison defined a faction as “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, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.” A faction becomes a problem when the ideology behind enjoys the support of the majority. Usually, a faction acts against what ought to be the common good. A faction is against the principles of democracy. When many people in a democratic government support a faction, wars can occur. The system of representation decentralizes power and brings power closer to the subjects. By dividing power between the national and state governments, citizens would perceive it as a form of empowering them. The division would also increase the common good. State governments are more effective compared to the national government, because they are close to the citizens. The emergence of factions under the state governments, according to Madison, would be difficult.
Madison’s praise of federalism is based on the reasons such as division of power, and thereby promoting good democracy, high involvement of the citizens in governance, and increasing public good for the citizens. With such benefits, factions are not easy to occur under federalism. Citizens feel that they are closer to the government under federalism. Federalism avoids the existence of passion or interest against the government by the majority. It is a way of dividing the republic into different units under the state governments. The states face different circumstances, and they do not have unity of challenges. They also respond to different state governments, therefore, promoting the strength of the national government with regards to managing factions.
8. How did the founders’ view of human nature and human political behavior influence their view on separation of powers? Why did the founders believe that it was necessary to separate the powers into separate branches? Did they think a strict separation of powers was necessary? Why or why not? What branch did the founders believe to be the most dangerous? Why? What considerations influenced the constitutional design of the checks and balances?
The founders perceived the human nature as selfish and aggressive. The weakness of human nature is that humans have the tendency of obsession with power. There is also the nature of corruption in humans, which affects their political behaviors. When people get into power, their aim is to preserve their positions. Furthermore, they may not act in good faith according to their manifestos. The human nature made the founders to believe that it was not good to concentrate power in the hands of an individual or an institution of power, as it would change a democracy into a monarch. It was, therefore, necessary to adopt the principle of “separation of powers” in the constitution. The principles created three arms of the government, with a system of checks and balances. The checks and balances of power would ensure that one arm does not act in excess of its constitutional mandate. The parliament, for example, has the function of making laws. However, the function of interpreting the laws belongs to the judiciary. The judiciary checks the laws to ensure that the parliament makes them in the interest of the citizens.
The founders believed in strict separation of powers for stability of the government. The constitution defines, in a strict way, the functions of each of the arms of government. No arm of government should perform a function that belongs to another arm. The executive was the most dangerous arm of government according to the founders. The arm has absolute power by virtue of voting. The executive, therefore, considers itself as the most powerful arm. However, the arm can abuse its powers if there are no arms that check its functions. Corruption in the executive, for example, affects the common good for the citizens. The founders designed the constitution with three arms, the executive, the parliament (bicameral), and the judiciary, to ensure that there were checks and balances in the government.
Last Completed Projects
| topic title | academic level | Writer | delivered |
|---|