Principles Of Checks And Balances

The United States Constitution, written in 1787, is one of the most influential documents ever created and has continued to stay relevant for over 200 years. The Constitution was proposed in order to replace the ineffective Articles of Confederation, which previously held the newly freed states together. The main goal of the Constitution was to unite the states together under a strong national government, outlined within the document. Between 1787 and 1788 when the Constitution what ratified, two main political groups arose with opinions in regards to the Constitution. They were the Federalists and the Anti Federalists. The Federalists supported the ratification of the Constitution because they believed a stronger central government would

They were particularly worried that a situation would arise where the US government would become monarchical, like Britain was. This would not happen under the Constitution because of the principles of separation of power and checks and balances. The Constitution would establish three branches of government: the legislative, executive, and judicial branches. Each of these branches would have different powers given to them so that no one branch would acquire too much influence. In addition, under the principle of checks and balances, each branch would be given the power to “check” each of the other branches. For example, Congress can vote to impeach the president, the head of the executive branch. This concept is summed up by James Madison in The Federalist No. 51, “you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself.” This quote is essentially saying that after you give the government power over the citizens, it must have to power to control itself. Altogether, the Constitution would prevent the new US government from becoming

This was proved by the ineffectiveness of the Articles of Confederation. James Madison illustrates this point in The Federalist No. 10 saying, “a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction.” A small government would only represent majority’s opinions and not fully serve the needs of the whole population. In contrast, A bigger government, with more representatives, will better serve to the interest of all people. Under those circumstances, minorities would be better protected by the government. Without a big representative government, only the will of the majority would rule and for this reason creating a hefty national government was