Essay 17: On The Federal Constitution – Volume 1 Part 1 Chapter 8 Sub Chapter 20
Essay Read by Constituting America Founder, Actress Janine Turner
The essays in our study reference the following edition of Democracy In America: University of Chicago Press – 1st edition translated by Harvey Mansfield and Delba Winthrop. Today’s essay references pages 143 – 146 (stop at heading What Distinguishes the Constitution of the United States of America from all other Federal Constitutions) of this edition of Democracy in America.
Please leave a comment in the blog below and automatically be entered in our weekly drawing for a free copy of the book!
In this section of Democracy in America, De Tocqueville claims that the national constitution is superior to those found in the states. In making this case, he points to a broader purpose of his project.
As he stated early in the work, De Tocqueville thinks that a general movement toward democratic forms of government are inevitable, part of a Providential movement in history. Yet he believes humans possess the ability to make their democracies better or worse. Here, he notes two problems democracies tend to face. Both he claims the national constitution combats better than its state counterparts.
First, De Tocqueville writes that one danger for democracies is the possibility of “[t]he complete enslavement of the legislative power to the will of the electoral body.” One might think this point is a good thing, a feature, not a bug. Should not the lawmakers in a popular government follow the will of the people, who by definition are the sovereign in such regimes?
De Tocqueville does not deny the ultimate sovereignty of the people. But he wants the people to exercise their rule in the most thoughtful, moderate, and just way possible. The people do so best through representatives who themselves possess some ability to lead and thus to mold popular opinion rather than merely follow it. This balance, wherein the representatives truly represent but do so with some room to persuade, depends in large part on the terms of office lawmakers hold.
In the states, the lawmakers tend to hold one to two year terms, De Tocqueville notes. This made the representatives constantly dependent on the immediate, short-term views of the people. In that mode, the people could be prejudiced, passionate, and irrational, as all persons can be at certain points in life. The national constitution established longer terms—two years for the House and six for the Senate—with the idea that, “lengthened the time of the electoral mandate to allow to the deputy a greater use of his free will.” With some space between elections, lawmakers had some time to persuade voters, to appeal to their more settled, rational, and longer-term interests. That space would increase the chances of justice being served, not the mighty feeding on the weak.
Second, the French thinker states that democracies tend to result in “[t]he concentration, in the legislative power, of all the other powers of government.” The Americans had learned from another Frenchman, Montesquieu, that political power was by nature legislative, executive, or judicial and that free governments divided these tasks among distinct institutions. To combine them descended into tyranny, even if it was the people themselves combining the power.
But state constitutions had proven woefully inadequate in realizing the truth about separation of powers. Though having such a distinction on paper, the legislative power tended to dominate in practice; executives and judges became the puppets of the lawmakers. The national constitution reacted to these problems with a better structure.
The president as national executive would have a four year term, thus giving him the independence that came with length of office. Moreover, the legislature could not coerce him to act in certain ways by diminishing or eliminating his salary. Finally, De Tocqueville points to the veto, whereby the president could stop legislative attempts to minimize or eliminate his inherent constitutional powers.
Other guards existed for the judiciary. They, too, would have salary protections. But instead of a four-year term, the judges, once appointed, held their positions for life absent willing resignation or the difficult process of impeachment and removal. These judges need not succumb to legislative control but instead could exercise their own powers in ways that furthered their purpose and checked overreaches from other branches.
Taken together, De Tocqueville says the clear result was that, “the affairs of the Union are infinitely better conducted than the particular affairs of any state.” By this claim he meant the national government operated in a more moderate, wise, intelligent, stable, and firm manner. Doing so was about much more than simple efficiency. De Tocqueville saw in the national constitution mechanisms that preserved the people’s liberty against its many foes. The national constitution channeled decision-making the exercise of power in ways more likely to result in justice.
We would be wise to listen to De Tocqueville’s wise observations. It not only will make us better students of our own country. It might make us better citizens of it here and now.
Adam M. Carrington is Associate Professor of Political Science at Ashland University, teaching courses on U.S. political institutions and the intersection of faith and political thought. Previously, he taught in The Van Andel Graduate School of Statesmanship at Hillsdale College, focusing on the U.S. Constitution, Constitutional Law, The American Presidency, and Politics & Literature. His writing has appeared in such popular forums as The Wall Street Journal, The Hill, National Review, and Washington Examiner. His book on the jurisprudence of Justice Stephen Field was published in 2017 by Lexington. Carrington received his B.A. from Ashland University and his M.A. and Ph.D. from Baylor University. He lives in Hillsdale with his wife and their two daughters.
Click here to receive our Daily 90-Day Study Essay emailed directly to your inbox.
Click here for the essay schedule with today’s essay and previously published essays hyperlinked.
Many states today are run much more efficiently and constitutionaly than the federal government. Many states also have requirements in their constitutions that our federal constitution does not. I also believe many things enshrined within state constitutions should have been legislated. Times have changed much since the time of Dr Tocqueville.
Thank you for your comment and participation! You are the winner of this week’s free copy of De Tocqueville’s Democracy in America book drawing! Please email us your preferred mailing address to orders@constitutingamerica.org and we will send you your book! We are glad you are enjoying our study:
The Genius of America: A Journey Into Our Republic
A Study on Alexis de Tocqueville’s Democracy In America
Please keep reading and commenting! We value your input!
The reason that the national government is superior (i.e., better) than the state governments is that each division — executive, judicial, senate, house — is chosen by a different group of people, each group itself ultimately being chosen by the people. Each division of the government in a republic represents somewhat different interests — the people, the states, the country as a whole, the Constitution. Sadly, the trend is to change the selection process so that all divisions of the government represent one interest — the people, pure democracy, mob rule. States themselves should model their governments to be more like that of a republic. And the 17th Amendment should be repealed.