Ameritopia_ The Unmaking of America - Mark R. Levin [57]
Furthermore, he emphasized that the law must be stable and predictable, reflective of society’s mores, and made not to interfere with the individual’s routine except in cases of actual necessity. When disputes arise or violations of law occur, they are to be adjudicated by individuals who are independent of the legislative and executive branches and adhere strictly to the law’s meaning.
In addition to his separation-of-powers design, Montesquieu’s warning about a republic’s vulnerability should its size be too big and its scope too broad provided compelling political and intellectual justification for the federalism model in the American constitution. Even Montesquieu’s discussion of the republic of the Lycians, where member towns (states) were allocated votes based on their size, and the republic of Holland, where member states were each allocated a single vote regardless of size, provided guidance for organizing America’s future congress.
Montesquieu also rejected pure democracy, or extreme equality, where the public makes claims on the liberties and rights of the individual. He observed that property rights, commerce, and trade create wealth and economic progress, which benefit the individual and society. They also encourage peace between nations.
Montesquieu’s view of man, man’s nature, society, the law, and government would undoubtedly have led him to conclude that utopianism is despotism. He argued for liberty, equality properly understood, moderation, tolerance, and tradition. In political freedom, he believed the individual and society would prosper. Among his greatest thoughts were those aimed at the means of diminishing the opportunities for tyranny in government. Hence, Montesquieu’s advocacy for republicanism, constitutionalism, justice, and the rule of law. In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieu would provide a road map for the American constitution, in which a system of government is established to represent a diverse and dynamic society, and the individual lives free from the cruelty and domination of others and the government itself.
CHAPTER NINE
THE INFLUENCE OF MONTESQUIEU ON THE FRAMERS
THE TASK FACED BY the Framers of the Constitution was colossal. It made great sense that they would borrow from Charles de Montesquieu in developing a new government. He is believed to have been the most widely cited philosopher in America during the 1780s.1
It was certainly the case at the Constitutional Convention. Professor John R. Vile notes, “Delegates referred to Montesquieu a number of times during the Convention debates.2 On June 1, Pennsylvania’s James Wilson favorably cited Montesquieu’s commendation of a confederated republic;3 Montesquieu provided one of the authorities for Alexander Hamilton’s speech to the Convention on June 18;4 on June 23, Pierce Butler of South Carolina observed ‘the great Montesquieu says, it is unwise to entrust persons with power, which by being abused operates to the advantage of those entrusted with it’;5 on June 30, Virginia’s James Madison cited Montesquieu as authority for the view that the Lycian confederacy vested members with votes proportional to their importance;6 on July 17 Madison cited Montesquieu as opposing undue dependence of the executive on the legislative body;7 Maryland’s James McHenry drew a similar conclusion on September 6;8 on July 11, Virginia’s Edmund Randolph cited Montesquieu as saying that suffrage is ‘a fundamental article in Republican Govts.’;9 and other delegates reflected sentiments that Montesquieu had advocated.”10
SEPARATION OF POWERS
Clearly, one of Montesquieu’s most important contributions