Since I’ve now posted a political documentary, I think it would be appropriate to post a book review/analysis that I have done after reading this book for one of my other classes. The book is called “What Kind of Nation” and it is written by James F. Simon. If you’re looking for some light summer reading or just some interesting fundamental background on the constitutional and philosophical principles that helped shape this country from a legal aspect, you will find this to be a very interesting read.
In What Kind of Nation, author James F. Simon illustrates the proverbial battle between the Founding Fathers over the structure and function of the federal government of the United States. More specifically, this book highlights the ongoing feud between Thomas Jefferson and John Marshall throughout the first few decades following the birth of the United States. The two men had differing perspectives about the nature of authority between the federal and the state governments, as well as how the power should be distributed within the federal government among the executive, judicial, and legislative branches. Though the two figures often clashed over how to resolve the governmental disputes that loomed at the time of the nation’s founding, Simon argues that these two seemingly incompatible men both ended up making a contribution to the forward progress of the early United States in terms of their respective institutional preferences and their conceptions of the nature of the government. Simon argues that while John Marshall’s time as Chief Justice allowed him to establish the credibility and respect that the Supreme Court has since come to be recognized for, Thomas Jefferson’s own views about the federal-to-state government relationship and the delegation of power to the people have also visibly taken shape.
Simon describes the inherent differences between Jefferson and Marshall in relation to their respective perceptions about which direction the country should move towards in relation to the economy and the relative power of the state and federal government. Jefferson, a Republican, sided with James Madison in the need to ratify a Bill of Rights that would serve as restrictions on the power of the federal government in relation to individuals. Jefferson’s primary commitments were to states’ rights, popular sovereignty, and individual liberty. He also believed that the future of America was “dependent upon a traditional agrarian economy that was based on the hard work and democratic ideals of yeoman farmers” (Simon 28). John Marshall, a Federalist, did not share much of Jefferson’s sympathy for strong state governments. Rather, Marshall believed in the need for a strong federal government, in which an independent federal judiciary would be a “necessary bulwark against an overreaching Congress” (25). If the country were to keep the legislative branch in check, a strong federal judiciary would be necessary to maintaining institutional legitimacy and a proper balance of power. In combination with Jefferson’s important leadership role in negations with France, these contrasting views between these two men provided a basis for much of their disagreement.
Simon devotes the majority of his book to the documentation of the various ways in which both Marshall and Jefferson were faced with situations that threatened both their personal and institutional legitimacy with respect to their governmental roles. John Marshall became the head of the Supreme Court at a point in time when the judiciary was far from being considered a coequal branch of government. However, he proved himself capable of establishing the institutional legitimacy of the “least dangerous branch” in a number of ways (Federalist No. 78). Simon argues that Marshall’s leadership on the Court was evident in the fact that there were so many unanimous opinions on the early Court (152). This consistency among the members of the Court increased the chances that the public would perceive the Court as an institution free from politicization and aimed at promoting justice, further enhancing its institutional credibility. While the case of Marbury v. Madison could have greatly damaged Marshall’s credibility, his carefully crafted argument and his decision to refrain from partisan judicialization helped Marshall not only re-establish himself but also the legitimacy of the Court. Thomas Jefferson’s own credibility came into question when he decided to overhaul most of the Federalist appointed judges after stating in his First Inaugural Address that he would not do so (148). Simon uses these examples to strengthen his argument about the conflict between Jefferson and Marshall and the resulting impact that this ongoing struggle over the nature of the distribution of political power.
Overall, What Kind of Nation does an exceptional job at analyzing the debate between Marshall and Jefferson and framing it in the context of the general principles of American government. Simon argues that the differences and accomplishments between the two have made a profound impact on the evolution and progression of the United States and its political institutions. While there are some areas in which Simon’s argument may be lacking, the way in which he analyzes and evaluates the institutional roles of both Marshall and Jefferson provides thorough insight into the nature and origin of many contemporary debates about the nature of power in the federal government and the distribution of power among the states and the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment