Brutus no.1, EXPLAINED [AP Government Foundational Documents]

hey there and welcome back to heimlich's history and further welcome to another video in our foundational documents series for ap government in this video we're going to be considering brutus number one so if you're ready to get them brain cows milk participatory style well then let's get to it so in the last video i talked about federalist 10 and the ap overlords are concerned that you understand the debate between that document and brutus one now by way of reminder the federalist papers argued for the ratification of the constitution while the anti-federalist papers of which brutus number one is the first argued against ratification of the constitution and both sets of essays were published in new york newspapers to try to persuade the public one way or the other now while federalist 10 argued for the merits of a republican-style government for a large nation like the united states brutus is going to take an anti-constitutional dump all over that argument and let's see how he does it and by the way there is a debate who actually wrote brutus one so i'm just gonna call him brutus and if it helps you remember what this document is all about just remember that brutus was one of the guys who assassinated julius caesar who happened to lead a very powerful centralized government okay so let's get into the document the main question brutus is attempting to answer is this the first question that presents itself on the subject is whether a confederated government be the best for the united states or not now a confederated government in case you don't know is the kind of government that the united states had under the articles of confederation the states had all the power and the central government had very little in fact you might say that there were 13 governments in the early united states one for each state that were loosely tied together by a weak central authority okay so continuing or in other words whether the 13 united states should be reduced to one great republic governed by one legislature and under the direction of one executive and judicial or whether they should continue 13 confederated republics under the direction and control of a supreme federal head for certain defined national purposes only okay so the question is this which is better for this new freedom-loving nation a confederacy of state governments or a powerful central government and brutus argued in no uncertain terms that a confederacy is better than the republic that the constitution would establish there are several arguments brutus makes in support of this claim chief among them is that oh so odious necessary and proper clause in article 1 section 8 of the constitution which says that congress can make any law which shall be necessary and proper to the execution of its enumerated powers and causing a further stench in brutus's nostrils is the supremacy clause in article 6 which says that federal laws have greater authority than state laws so what's the problem with that well brutus help me out it appears from these articles that there is no need of any intervention of the state governments between the congress and the people to execute any one power vested in the general government and that the constitution and laws of every state are nullified and declared void so far as they shall be inconsistent with this constitution and so what happens in that case all power that is reserved for the individual states must very soon be annihilated except so far as they are barely necessary for the organization of the general government so brutus main concern is that by creating a central authority who can by the necessary and proper clause pass any law imaginable and by which the supremacy clause can crush any state law under its big hairy feet that state governments will just shrivel up and die but this is not just theoretical for brutus he gives several examples of how this death of state power could happen but we'll only look at the most pressing example the collection of taxes in the business therefore of laying and collecting taxes the idea of confederation is totally lost and that of one entire republic is embraced it is proper here to remark that the authority to lay and collect taxes is the most important of any power that can be granted it connects with almost all other powers everyone who has thought on this subject must be convinced that but small sums of money can be collected in any country by direct taxes hence when the federal government begins to exercise the right of taxation in all its parts the legislatures of the several states will find it impossible to raise monies to support their own governments without money they cannot be supported and they must dwindle away and as before observed their powers will be absorbed in that of the general government in other words any government that exists can only collect a small amount of taxes otherwise the citizens will grow weary of that taxation and throw the government off so if the federal government is going to collect taxes and there's only a small amount that people will tolerate how will the states also collect taxes and if states cannot collect taxes they'll shrivel up and die and now you've got one big powerful government left in their way now brutus goes on to make the same argument about the federal courts if the federal courts trump state courts then state courts will soon be rendered obsolete and unnecessary and then the final part of the argument is about the size of the nation and how by its sheer girth a republican form of government is not well suited to be installed and brutus pulls out the big guns for this argument quoting the baron de montesquieu who said in his treatise the spirit of the laws it is natural to a republic to have only a small territory otherwise it cannot long subsist wait why can't a republican government work in a big territory with a lot of people well brutus will answer that question with a question is it practicable for a country so large and so numerous as they will soon become to elect a representation that will speak to their sentiments without their becoming so numerous as to be incapable of transacting public business it certainly is not okay he answered it with a question and an answer but whatever his point is with a nation as large as the united states both in territory and in people how could elected representatives possibly keep their fingers on the pulse of everyone whom they represent and brutus's answer is simple it's not possible and the problem in that situation is as follows confidence which the people have in their rulers in a free republic arises from their knowing them from their being responsible to them for their conduct and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave but in a republic of the extent of this continent the people in general will be acquainted with very few of their rulers the people at large would know very little of their proceedings and it would be extremely difficult to change them okay that's what you need to know about brutus one if you need help getting an a in your class and a five on your exam may then click right over here and grab a view packet for more of the videos on the foundational documents you can have a look right here and if you want me to keep making these videos then let me know by subscribing heimler out

Channel: Heimler's History

Views: 342,539

Keywords:

Id: tm-fNMWuJwo

Length: 5min 44sec (344 seconds)

Published: Mon Aug 09 2021