Lesson 1.1 · Unit 1 · CA HSS 12.1.1
Greece, Rome, Locke, Montesquieu, Machiavelli and Blackstone
The men who wrote the Constitution were not inventing from nothing. They were applying a body of political thought they had read carefully, and knowing which idea came from where explains why the document has the shape it has.
- From Athens came direct democracy and the idea that citizens govern themselves, along with the warning that assemblies can act rashly and turn on individuals.
- From the Roman Republic came the republic itself: government by elected representatives, a senate, divided magistracies and the idea of a res publica, a public thing belonging to the citizens.
- From England came the common law, the principle that the ruler is under the law, trial by jury, and the tradition running from Magna Carta through the Petition of Right to the English Bill of Rights.
- John Locke supplied natural rights and government by consent, arguing that people possess rights before any government exists and form governments to protect them, which is the argument of the Declaration of Independence.
- Montesquieu supplied the separation of powers, arguing that liberty is destroyed whenever legislative, executive and judicial power are held by the same hands.
- Machiavelli supplied realism about power, insisting that political arrangements be designed for people as they are rather than as they ought to be.
- Blackstone supplied the systematic statement of English law, and his Commentaries were the standard legal text in the colonies, so American lawyers learned their law from him.
Where students lose marks: listing the thinkers without naming what each contributed to a specific feature of the American system. The examinable skill is pointing at a clause and saying which idea produced it.
The sources. John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, 1689, and Charles-Louis de Secondat, Baron de Montesquieu, The Spirit of the Laws, 1748, in the standard English translation. Both public domain.
Men being, as has been said, by nature, all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate, and subjected to the political power of another, without his own consent.
The great and chief end, therefore, of men's uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property.
When the legislative and executive powers are united in the same person, or in the same body of magistrates, there can be no liberty; because apprehensions may arise, lest the same monarch or senate should enact tyrannical laws, to execute them in a tyrannical manner.
Again, there is no liberty, if the judiciary power be not separated from the legislative and executive. Were it joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the legislator.
Step one: extract Locke's argument in order. People are naturally free and equal. Therefore nobody can be subjected to political power without consenting. Therefore legitimate government rests on the consent of the governed. Each step follows from the one before it.
Step two: trace it into the Declaration. The Declaration says that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with unalienable rights, that governments are instituted to secure those rights, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. That is Locke's sequence, in order, in a document written eighty-seven years later.
Step three: note what Locke means by property. He uses the word more broadly than we do, covering a person's life, liberty and estate. Reading it as land alone makes the Declaration's phrase about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness look like a departure from Locke when it is a restatement of him.
Step four: extract Montesquieu's argument. He does not claim that combined powers will certainly be abused. He claims that liberty is gone once they are combined, because the possibility of abuse is itself the loss. Apprehension is the word he uses, and it is doing real work.
Step five: trace it into the Constitution. Article I vests legislative power in Congress, Article II vests executive power in a President, Article III vests judicial power in the courts. Three articles, three powers, three sets of hands. The structure of the document is Montesquieu's argument turned into an outline.
Step six: identify what the Americans added. Montesquieu described separation. The Constitution adds shared powers: the President vetoes bills, the Senate confirms appointments, the courts interpret statutes. Pure separation would let each branch operate unchecked in its own sphere, so the founders deliberately overlapped them, which is the subject of lesson 1.5.
Step seven: place Machiavelli. His contribution is not a clause but a method: design institutions for people as they actually behave. Federalist 51's remark that men are not angels is that method applied, and it is why the system relies on structure rather than on the virtue of officeholders.
Step eight: place Blackstone. His Commentaries were the book American lawyers read, so the vocabulary of the Constitution, terms like habeas corpus, bill of attainder, ex post facto law and due process, arrives already defined. The framers could write those phrases without explanation because every reader knew what Blackstone meant by them.
Questions 1 to 5 are recall. Questions 6 to 10 ask for reasoning.
- What did the Roman Republic contribute to American government?
Show the full solution
The republic itself: elected representatives, a senate, and government as a public thing belonging to the citizens
- State Locke's core claim.
Show the full solution
That people are naturally free and equal, so nobody may be subjected to political power without consenting
- State Montesquieu's core claim.
Show the full solution
That liberty is destroyed when legislative, executive and judicial power are held by the same hands
- What did Machiavelli contribute?
Show the full solution
Realism: designing institutions for people as they are rather than as they ought to be
- Why did Blackstone matter in America?
Show the full solution
His Commentaries were the standard legal text in the colonies, so American lawyers learned their law from him
- Trace Locke's argument into the Declaration of Independence.
Show the full solution
Locke argues that people are naturally free and equal, that nobody can therefore be subjected to political power without consent, and that people form governments to preserve their property, by which he means life, liberty and estate. The Declaration says all men are created equal, that they have unalienable rights, that governments are instituted to secure those rights, and that they derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. The sequence is identical. Equality, then rights, then government to secure them, then consent: Locke's order exactly
- Why does reading Locke's "property" narrowly cause a misunderstanding?
Show the full solution
Because Locke uses the word to cover a person's life, liberty and estate together, not land alone. Read narrowly, the Declaration's phrase about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness looks like Jefferson departing from Locke and substituting a softer aim. Read as Locke used it, the phrase is a restatement of what Locke already meant, which is why the eighteenth century vocabulary has to be checked before conclusions are drawn from it. Locke's "property" already covered life and liberty, so the Declaration restates rather than departs
- What precisely does Montesquieu claim, and why does the word "apprehensions" matter?
Show the full solution
He does not claim that combined powers will certainly be abused, but that liberty is already gone once they are combined, because apprehension of tyrannical laws tyrannically enforced is itself the loss of liberty. A subject who must wonder whether the power over them will be used arbitrarily is not free, whatever actually happens. That is a stronger claim than a prediction of abuse, and it is why the structure matters independently of who holds office. The possibility of arbitrary power destroys liberty even before it is used
- Show how the Constitution's structure reflects Montesquieu.
Show the full solution
Article I vests all legislative powers in a Congress, Article II vests the executive power in a President, and Article III vests the judicial power in the Supreme Court and such inferior courts as Congress establishes. Three consecutive articles assign three powers to three separate sets of hands, in the order and with the reasoning Montesquieu gave. The outline of the document is his argument converted into organization. Three articles assign three powers to three separate institutions
- What did the framers add to Montesquieu's separation, and why?
Show the full solution
Shared powers. The President vetoes legislation, the Senate confirms appointments and ratifies treaties, the House impeaches and the Senate tries, and the courts interpret statutes Congress writes. Pure separation would leave each branch unchecked within its own sphere, so the framers deliberately overlapped them to give each a hold on the others. Separation prevents one set of hands from holding everything; sharing prevents each set from abusing what it does hold. Overlapping checks, because pure separation leaves each branch unchecked in its own sphere