![]() Madison, according to Frisch, was a “consummate trimmer,” but nevertheless represents a genuine third alternative that deserves consideration along with the others. That is, Frisch seeks to amend our view of the great, titanic competition between Hamilton and Jefferson in defining the alternative readings of the Constitution, with Madison perhaps vacillating somewhere in between or collapsing into Jeffersonianism. Second, what is very likely the commonplace understanding of the relationship among these three figures is not true. Its meaning in the crucial respects regarding the limits of federal power and executive/legislative balance remained to be determined and were largely determined by the political controversy among these three men. First, as he points out explicitly, the Constitution was not really finished in 1789. Professor Frisch sets forth a structure of perspectives on the Constitution among James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Alexander Hamilton as being “Three-Cornered.” This means at least three things. He provides us with not only a clarification regarding the intention of the framers as to the meaning of one or another of their authoritative phrases, but a reflection upon the differences in constitutional and political philosophy among them. Professor Frisch’s statement contributes to this renewal. It is not surprising, then, that we are witnessing a rejuvenation of interest in constitutional scholarship. So pervasive and seemingly intractable has the problem of a large industrial society become that we have to wonder, has the country finally come to a point where we are simply not able to govern ourselves responsibly under our present forms? Ideas like the one to limit legislators’ terms, or to give the executive a much freer hand in shaping the budget, go directly to the basic issues of checks and balances of the presidential/congressional system of government. ![]() We are therefore more inclined to be conscious of the distinctive features of our own federal union and its claim to be something special: neither a completely consolidated union nor a confederation as the world has always known it. Americans observe the nations of Europe, and also the former members of the Soviet Union, groping towards new, “loose confederations.” For any of us who have the slightest awareness of the experience of our own nation under the Articles of Confederation, the intentions of the Europeans or the former Soviets must seem vague and unschooled. separation of powers and checks and balances among the branches. Although we pragmatic Americans tend to be somewhat resistant to matters of form, recent changes in the world and in our domestic politics have brought forth a new attentiveness to questions concerning the basic structural features of our government: e.g.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |