Paper48

Kelly Loughlin
 * Federalist Paper #48 **

//__Paper Summary __//  Federalist Paper #48 is an essay written by James Madison, but he published the paper under the name Publius. Federalist Paper #48 is a continuation that also builds upon Federalist Paper #47. In that essay, Publius argued for Separation of Powers. However, in this paper he argues that the three branches of government must not totally be divided. Paper #48 is titled “These Departments Should Not Be So Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control over Each Other.” The essay starts by saying “power is of an encroaching nature.” Publius criticizes that people with power will begin and attempt to gain all the power they can. The essay then singles out the legislative branch as being a main branch that can potentially seize ultimate power unless otherwise given limitations. The paper explains that the excessive danger of the legislative branch becoming too powerful was not thought about by the “founders of our republics,” which were the people who wrote the state constitutions, and outlined in the Articles of Confederation. The paper then notes that the legislative powers are both “more extensive, and less susceptible of precise limits.” This explains that it gives more rights to the branch, than outlines a distinct set of guidelines of its duties. Therefore, it is fairly easy for a single branch to overstep its boundaries. Next, Federalist Paper #48 supplies two examples of over-powering branches shown in the state governments of Pennsylvania and Virginia. These two examples argue that many violations were committed by the branches of state governments. 

//__Main Objective Publius was Trying to Accomplish __// The main objective that Publius was trying to accomplish in writing Federalist Paper #48 was to explain to the people debating on ratifying the Constitution that in order to have three branches of government there must be some constitutional control over each other. As explained through the examples of Pennsylvania and Virginia, Publius shows that one branch of government can gain too much control. By incorporating these two examples in Federalist Paper #48, Publius outlines the faults in the separation of the branches in the state governments and makes them apparent to society.

//__The Strongest Arguments to back up their opinions __//  The Strongest Federalist arguments in this paper lies within the examples of the state government of Pennsylvania and Virginia. Publius, referring to Pennsylvania, criticizes that “a great number of laws had been passed, violating, without any apparent necessity, the rule requiring that all bills of a public nature shall be previously printed for the consideration of the people…” Then later followed by, “Executive powers had been usurped. The salaries of the judges, which the constitution expressly requires to be fixed, had been occasionally varied; and cases belonging to the judiciary department frequently drawn within legislative cognizance and determination.” These quotes prove that in the branches within the Pennsylvania state government had exceeded their individual boundaries because of the lack of structure and limitations. Furthermore, Virginia stated that “the three great departments ought not to be intermixed.” Publius notes that if the branches cannot be checked and restrained by the others, than the individual branches may exceed their limitations. Thus, Publius creates a strong opinion that the state governments will never allow the nation to grow and that there are too many flaws between the branches of government to allow it to thrive.

//__The Possible Opposing Arguments __//  The sole purpose of the Federalist Papers was to get the Anti-Federalists to agree to the newly proposed Constitution. However, even though these papers helped convince some citizens, others were not wholly convinced and had many opposing arguments. For example, an Anti-Federalist, in response to Federalist Paper #48, might ask how Publius is so sure that the branches of government were better off being not separated and having a constitutional control over each other. The Federalists were not so sure either that this was the right path to take, but they needed to create another system because the old one was not sufficient and this seemed like the only option. Furthermore, an Anti-federalist might also oppose that the state governments of Pennsylvania and Virginia were in fact acceptable and that there was no need for a change. They might argue that the state governments were still carrying out the duties in which was asked of them, but each interpreted it in a different way.

//__The Validity of these Arguments __//  Both sides of the argument are valid, but Publius effectively got his point across and gained the trust of the Anti-Federalists. The Federalists longed for a change and desperately sought for one. They believed they needed to change this issue that was resting on the nation in order for it to prosper. They thought that the nation would never survive if the limitations of the branches were not carefully mapped out and checked upon. They believed that structure was very important for the government and that existing state governments would never last. On the other hand, the Anti-federalists were concerned with the big changes. They found it hard to quickly agree to something that would change the nation forever. Each view of the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were valid. However, if we did trust and did not follow the path of the Federalist's views, we would not have the Constitution and the government structure that we have today.

//__Do these arguments exist today? __//  These arguments do not exist today because along with the ratification of the Constitution, the issues were resolved. The constitution offers an equal balance of power between all of the branches of government. There are various checks that each branch goes through so that single branch does not become too powerful. For example, today, if the legislative branch makes a law, the president has the right to veto it. In July of 2009, President Obama threatened to veto the Intelligence Authorization Act, asserting that Congress was unconstitutionally pursuing information about executive branch deliberations. It was stated that this was President Obama’s third threat to veto a bill since he was elected last November. Furthermore, this check on the branches might have not happened in the state governments Publius was criticizing.