Our website is currently undergoing updates, some links may no longer work and content may change. Please check back soon.

Ambition to Counteract Ambition: What Did the Founders Think about Factions, Political Parties, and Institutional Ambition?

In this Federalist Society America 250 series, experts analyze modern legal and policy debates through the lens of the Founding generation. The Founders gave us the tools to answer many contemporary questions; join us as we explore those answers.

The Constitution’s separation of powers rested in part on the expectation that officeholders would defend the authority of their respective institutions. As Madison put it, “ambition must be made to counteract ambition.” Yet modern members of Congress may identify more strongly with their political party than with the House or Senate, potentially transforming the Framers’ anticipated competition among the branches into competition between partisan coalitions. Further complicating matters, certain modern factions, like the Democratic Socialists of America, reject the separation of powers itself, proposing an executive and judiciary subordinate to Congress.

How did the Founders understand factions, parties, and institutional ambition? How have the direct election of senators, the growth of the executive branch, the influence of radical intraparty factions, and the emergence of national partisan agendas changed the constitutional balance? Join our panel for a discussion of the relationship between political parties and constitutional structure, from the Founding era to the present day.

Featuring:

  • Prof. Daniel DiSalvo, Professor; Associate Dean of Faculty Development and Curriculum, School of Civic Life and Leadership, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • Yuval Levin, Senior Fellow, Beth and Ravenel Curry Chair in Public Policy; Director, Social, Cultural, and Constitutional Studies, American Enterprise Institute
  • (Moderator) Hon. Timothy Downing, Judge, Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals

*******

As always, the Federalist Society takes no position on particular legal or public policy issues; all expressions of opinion are those of the speaker.