Replies

Ping! The thread has been posted.

Earlier threads:

The Council of Censors was removed from the PA Constitution of 1790. One problem was its political character. It was a political body making judicial decisions. It was a noble idea but found wanting and quickly remedied.

This Federalist is a reminder that our Framers considered every possible avenue to achieve limited government in accordance with our Declaration of Independence. They were knowledgeable of Greek, Roman, medieval, and English institutions and had 180 years of colonial experience before meeting in Philadelphia. This should be remembered when the usual posts regarding Article III occur.

This censorial body, therefore, proves at the same time, by its researches, the existence of the disease, and by its example, the inefficacy of the remedy.

Interesting. The "existence of the disease and the inefficacy of the remedy" is well written. I’m left wondering how these discussions on FR would be different if the Federalists were written in paragraph form. My copies have it in paragraph form and I’m struck by how well the writers wrote and how they composed the forms of their arguments.

Discussion Topic

Does Madison’s argument hold water? Should there be regular conventions for revising the Constitution, or should such an event be held only when it appears to be necessary? Why or why not?

Yeah, I think it holds water. I think by "Madison’s argument" you mean the argument against periodic review. Madison’s argument seems to be that a council of angels isn’t going to come along and revise the constitution at least because the people would never admit to its divinity being greater than the "best and brightest" they’ve already sent to Congress.

In this essay I read this sentence, "It even appears, if I mistake not, that in one instance the contemporary legislature denied the constructions of the council and actually prevailed in the contest." The popular representatives prevailed over a council of wise men. This practical case probably stuck with him as he was arguing the theory of representative government in this Federalist and at the Constitutional Convention. Over and over Madison argued against the idea of "wise men." He was against the idea of a "House of Lords" every time someone tried to suggest it as a remedy for representative democracy.

In modifying the constitution, "held only when it appears to be necessary" the question has to be, "necessary by whom and modified by who else"? I guess he will get into it in a later Federalist but it’s difficult to find an entity more legitimate than the House of Representatives. He mentions the problem with the House by writing, "If the periods be separated by short intervals, the measures to be reviewed and rectified will have been of recent date and will be connected with all the circumstances which tend to vitiate and pervert the result of occasional revisions."