Comparing The Balance Of Power Between American Citizens And The Government

The balance of power between American citizens and the government has remained a controversial topic since its founding. Upon separation from England, the founding fathers were determined to craft a governmental framework that great contrast The Monarchy of England, in fear of tyrannical power and voiceless masses. In “Brutus” Anti-Federalist argue that correlating the number of elected House Representatives to state population ignores smaller states power, indirectly empowering the federal government. In contrast, Jame Madison, a Federalist in favor of centralization, fears the power of the masses, believing states and people with excess power poses a threat to the power of the federal government; he asserts in “Federalist 51” that checks of state and federal power will preserve the rights of citizens within the federalist framework while simultaneously …show more content…
Yet, he initially affirms that departments within the government have their own agency and should limit conflicts of interest, meaning officials of one department should not have ruling authority over another (Madison 1). The subdivision of the Judiciary, Executive, and Legislative branches should not have unnessary authority over each other; although, these branches confer, they should not submit to the will of other branches without proper jurisdiction. This notion is extended to say, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition” (Madison 2). Checks and balances in American government are necessary to hold each party accountable. According to Thomas Hobbes, since all men are naturally selfish, government is proper to maintain human order; On the same token, it is necessary for government to govern each other, countering their selfish interest. By doing so, the American Government is able to better protect the civil rights of Americans and additionally, hold the masses accountable in their