Independent Journal (New York)
January 23, 1788
An effective government is supposed to take care of its people’s problems. To even pretend to take care of people’s problems, a government must learn of the problems. When problems arise in smaller countries, those governments are likelier than those in large countries to have their governments learn of the problems: the proximity between the government and its people is closer. But in large countries, with their expanded geography and higher populations, arguably more problems arise, and problems can be confined to certain regions. This raises tensions between those regions—which can be far from the capital and have little chance to even voice the problems—, and it invariably leads to calls for a more responsive government. Sometimes, it even leads to calls for secession—for the region to break away and to have its own government that is tuned into the local issues. A system that has a federal government and local governments, in theory, should account for such regional issues. But there are some issues that add layers of complexity: if the local problem is one that can fester into violence, or insurrection, this raises questions about how a federal government should handle the situation. In a country with a federal government and state governments, with overlapping spheres of power between them, questions arise: what if a state begins to move away from a republican form of government or there is an outbreak of political violence or insurrection? What might the federal government do, based on the Constitution, to intervene and control the situation? There is a section of the Constitution—rarely discussed—that addresses these issues, and in The Federalist XLIII, James Madison deeply analyzed that portion of the Constitution.
(more…)




