Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post - Taxation (and other governances of a citizen) without representation (& the EC)

Publius · 11-10-2004, 07:59 PM

Ahhh the light dawns. Thanks for the quote Moskie now at least I know what you are referring too. Let us look at this selection to see what Madison is referring too.

“The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.”

So let us dissect this section to see what Madison is saying. First: “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.” Here Madison is saying that the need for the national seat of government to be free of dependance on any one state (or State legislature) is self evident. Second: “It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy.” Here Madison is referring to the “complete authority” mentioned in the previous sentence. And now for the last part: “Without it (it being the “complete authority”), not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity (by the state government in which it resides); but a dependence of the members of the general government (national government) on the State comprehending the seat of the government (in other words; “on the State in which the national capital resides”) , for protection in the exercise of their duty (their referring here to the National Government), might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence (rephrase; might give the State Government in which the National Capitol resides undo influence with other nations), equally dishonorable to the government (the National Government) and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy (the other States in the Union).”

What I see Madison arguing here, then, is not that there are a certain set of people (presumably nationally elected officials, federal employees, etc) who should not be represented in Congress, rather, Madison is arguing that if the Nation’s Capitol were to reside in a single state, that state (and state’s legislature) would be able to legislate governing law over the National Government (and members there of) which of course would run in contradiction to the idea of a Federal Government having power over the many states.

We must keep in mind when reading the Federalist Papers what Madison (along with Hamilton and John Jay) are attempting to “sell”, if you will, the idea of Federal Government to the population in the states prior to the ratification of the Constitution. They are coming out of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to produce a national government strong enough to bind the many states together. One such problem was that with the capitol located in Philadelphia the state of Pennsylvania had in many peoples minds held too much power and influence over the national government. Madison’s argument, then, is to demonstrate how the new Capitol should not be located within any one state so as to insulate it from the this sort of control.

I hope that this explains a little better an answer to your question.

11-10-2004, 07:59 PM	#31 (permalink)
Publius Crazy Location: Never Never Land	Ahhh the light dawns. Thanks for the quote Moskie now at least I know what you are referring too. Let us look at this selection to see what Madison is referring too. “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy. Without it, not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the members of the general government on the State comprehending the seat of the government, for protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence, equally dishonorable to the government and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy.” So let us dissect this section to see what Madison is saying. First: “The indispensable necessity of complete authority at the seat of government, carries its own evidence with it.” Here Madison is saying that the need for the national seat of government to be free of dependance on any one state (or State legislature) is self evident. Second: “It is a power exercised by every legislature of the Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its general supremacy.” Here Madison is referring to the “complete authority” mentioned in the previous sentence. And now for the last part: “Without it (it being the “complete authority”), not only the public authority might be insulted and its proceedings interrupted with impunity (by the state government in which it resides); but a dependence of the members of the general government (national government) on the State comprehending the seat of the government (in other words; “on the State in which the national capital resides”) , for protection in the exercise of their duty (their referring here to the National Government), might bring on the national councils an imputation of awe or influence (rephrase; might give the State Government in which the National Capitol resides undo influence with other nations), equally dishonorable to the government (the National Government) and dissatisfactory to the other members of the Confederacy (the other States in the Union).” What I see Madison arguing here, then, is not that there are a certain set of people (presumably nationally elected officials, federal employees, etc) who should not be represented in Congress, rather, Madison is arguing that if the Nation’s Capitol were to reside in a single state, that state (and state’s legislature) would be able to legislate governing law over the National Government (and members there of) which of course would run in contradiction to the idea of a Federal Government having power over the many states. We must keep in mind when reading the Federalist Papers what Madison (along with Hamilton and John Jay) are attempting to “sell”, if you will, the idea of Federal Government to the population in the states prior to the ratification of the Constitution. They are coming out of the failure of the Articles of Confederation to produce a national government strong enough to bind the many states together. One such problem was that with the capitol located in Philadelphia the state of Pennsylvania had in many peoples minds held too much power and influence over the national government. Madison’s argument, then, is to demonstrate how the new Capitol should not be located within any one state so as to insulate it from the this sort of control. I hope that this explains a little better an answer to your question.