User:Srenberg/sandbox

Article Evaluation:

I read the Wikipedia article for Federalist No.10 for evaluation. Overall, I thought the article was informative and highlighted the key points from the original essay written by James Madison. The article did a nice job of supplying links to many of the subjects discussed. I also appreciated it giving the Federalist Paper s context through the use of a background section and the inclusion of a counter argument to Madison’s writings. Despite Federalist Paper #10 being relatively short, this article was fairly extensive and focussed particularly on the notion of economics’ influence on politics through faction. To my knowledge it was factually accurate and remained neutral. However, there were some glaring flaws that appeared throughout.

In the first section, another user had already noted the articles obvious lack of citations. Citations were only really missing from the first few paragraphs but, the average reader likely only reads those first few paragraphs so, it is imperative those opening claims are supported. In the opening the article also mentions “scholars and jurists” but doesn’t mention who specifically. I found that sentence vague and distracting from the summary. The next sentence in the article “Charles A. Beard [argues] that No. 10 shows an explicit rejection of the Founding Fathers for the principles of direct democracy and factionalism” also baffles me. It is my understanding that James Madison is a Founding Father so, why would his own paper reject himself? While this may not be the meaning intended by whoever wrote it, it is how I read it and I became sufficiently confused by it as I imagine others might be.

While I appreciate including a background, I thought what was written was weak. I found the mention of Shay’s Rebellion lacked obvious relevance to the federalist paper or even the background info supplied. It also mentions “the compromise” but doesn’t give any further explanation as to what that is. It walks through the reasons for the constitutional convention and Madison’s thought process but fails to mention why the constitution struggled to be ratified or why there was a need for Federalist #10 to be written in the first place. I feel those additions would make for a more comprehensive background and increased understanding of the Federalist Paper being discussed.

In addition, the section titled “Publication” starts off talking about the Constitution not the Federalist Paper which I found unnecessary and distracting.

As I read more about Madison’s arguments specifically, I was surprised there was no mention of the word “pluralism” since we used the term so frequently in class. Despite this, I do think it gave an effective analysis of the arguments made in the article.

Edit an Article:

Adding the following to Federalist 82

The essay focuses on explaining the breadth of jurisdiction between the state and Supreme Courts. Hamilton repeatedly assures his readers that state courts will not lose any pre-constitutional authority except on specific appeals. He also defends the section of the constitution that gives the Supreme Court automatic jurisdiction over cases where a state is an involved party.

Draft an Article Assignment:

Adding the following to Fed No. 77

In this paper, Hamilton discusses the power of the Senate to approve a president's appointments, the executive’s ability to call congress together to give the State of the Union, and shares his concluding thoughts on the President’s powers discussed throughout all of the Federalist Papers’ previous commentary.

Summary
Hamilton opens by acknowledging the counterarguments that oppose the "Union of the Senate with the President," established by both branches of government playing a role in the nomination process. He writes that some say it would result in the President having "undue influence" over the Senate and that others say it would have the opposite tendency. In response, Hamilton argues that the idea that this provision would create presidential power over the executive when the concept of a confirmation process is actually restraining executive power is "an absurdity in terms." To argue against the idea that requiring Senate confirmation is problematic because it will give the Senate influence over the President, he argues that the power of influence equates "conferring a benefit" and since the "power of nomination is unequivocally vested in the Executive" and the Senate can only "obstruct their course," the Senate cannot confer a benefit from the Executive. Thus, Hamilton reasons that the Senate does not have influence over the President.

When advocating for the nomination process outlined in the Constitution, Hamilton argues that having a Senate confirmation process would turn presidential appointments into "matters of notoriety" and that the public "would be at no loss" to form opinions on the nominees compared to the traditional "shut up" small group that appointed positions at the State level during his time. By doing this, Hamilton chose to criticize his own state of New York's method and makes the point of how a public, large scale process would increase accountability for both the President and the Senate compared to the current norm. He also adds that it is far easier to manipulate a small group than a big group like the Senate. Again, he juxtaposes what is outlined in the Constitution with New York's appointment process at the time which is 3-5 men, including the governor, who make these decisions behind closed doors.

Hamilton moves on from discussion of Senate confirmations to defend the Executive's constitutional power to give information to Congress on the State of the Union. He acknowledges that those who criticize the extent of this power only question the President's ability to convene each branch separately. Hamilton argues that since the Executive branch has "concurrent power" with the Senate, and only the Senate, to form treaties that it would be "unnecessary and improper" to convene the House of Representatives as well.