Locke & Montesquieu: The Philosophers Behind the Founders

Whenever the political laws of the  United States are to be discussed, it is with the doctrine of the sovereignty  of the people that we must begin. "If there be a country in the world where the  doctrine of the sovereignty of the people can be fairly appreciated, where it can be studied  in its application to the affairs of society, and where its dangers and its advantages may  be foreseen, that country is assuredly America. " So wrote famed French historian, Alexis de  Tocqueville.

But how did America come to be the preeminent example of the sovereignty of the  people? From whence did the world-changing words and actions of men like Washington, Madison,  and Jefferson find their origins? The answer may surprise you, because to a large extent the  foundational ideas behind this unique political experiment can be traced back to two extraordinary  thinkers: John Locke and Baron de Montesquieu.

Locke and Montesquieu are the tag team  philosophers of the American founding. From the Declaration of Independence to  the more comprehensive task of framing state constitutions and a durable  Constitution for a federal republic. Locke fires up the Americans, but  we live in Montesquieu’s world.

Locke was most important, actually, at  the time of the revolution itself and Montesquieu, much more important at the  time of the making of the Constitution. John Locke was one of many English  figures who helped shape how American colonists understood what government's supposed to do and how it relates to the citizens  who were members of the government. Locke's influence reached a certain kind of peak at the  time of the American Revolution.

And the main thoughts of his that had an influence are very visible in the American  Declaration of Independence. The founders were persuaded  by Locke that governments are supposed to secure the people's rights and the  governments exist by the consent of the governed. When the American colonial legislatures  and parliament argued about parliament's power to do things in the colonies, the  legal arguments that the founders made were informed by how they understood British  practice and British law through Lockean lenses.

Ultimate sovereignty rests with the people.  And it rests with the people because they have inalienable rights to life, liberty,  and property. And if they are infringed upon by parliament, their representatives, or  by the king, who is their representative in another sense, they can change the  form of government.

They have a right to do that. They're defending not just their  rights as Englishmen, but their rights as men. And, therefore, they look to Locke  to justify declaring independence.

Locke proclaimed that a government can only  have power if the people consent to give that government power. This is known  as rule by consent. According to Locke, if the people feel their rights are not protected,  they have the right to reject that government and start fresh.

Here, Montesquieu diverges from  Locke because, while Locke predominantly argued for the sovereignty of the people, Montesquieu  emphasized an idea known as the balance of powers. Charles de Montesquieu lived during the first half of  the 18th century and published his greatest work, The Spirit of Laws in 1748. It became the single  most influential work for those who drafted and debated the 1787 Constitution and Bill of  Rights.

He was a judge turned enlightenment political philosopher, emphasizing  human liberty and rational principles. Montesquieu's Spirit of the Laws sold like hotcakes.  And it was translated into every European language of any significance in a fairly short time  after its publication in 1748.

In other words, it is an 18th century best seller. By  this time, people are beginning to ask the question throughout all of Europe: "What's  the best way to constitute a government? " Montesquieu says a lot more than Locke does about  separation of powers.

Montesquieu understands the powers that ought to go into government  differently from the way Locke had set them forth. As he says in Spirit of Laws, a federation  is basically a society of societies, that is a larger society made up of  smaller societies. And that idea was, of course, very influential on all the Americans,  because that's what they thought they were doing.

Montesquieu advocated a complex constitutional  monarchy like England enjoyed by the 18th century, which he called a balance between Republic  and monarchy with judicial and legislative bodies to balance a King, and indeed, balance or  moderation is Montesquieu's overarching principle. America's constant contests among legislatures,  executives, and judges in the federal government and the states then across the two levels of  government, and also among political parties or interests and a free press, all of this follows  Montesquieu's philosophy that constant testing for equilibrium and constant argument will ensure  a freer, more humane, and more prudent politics. Imagine the United States without the foundational  ideas of rule by consent and balance of power.

Many argue that the very origins of the  country are the result of a belief in the sovereignty of the people and the constant  tension between interests that creates our separation balance of powers is  what binds the Republic together. We cannot understand the foundations  of our form of government without studying Locke and we cannot understand  the shape our government takes, the forms of that government, without studying Montesquieu. Locke taught his readers that a government exists  to serve its people and not the other way around.

And the arguments Locke made help us understand  why the American colonists became revolutionaries. I would say absolutely, we should return to Locke to think about rights and some of the questions  about political legitimacy that we have. We are losing the Montesquieuian spirit behind  our complex politics.

Thus, we don't know how to use the complicated institutions and norms he  advocated. Today, we mostly are just left with the testiness and edginess of revolutionary ideals and  demands. The danger now is that we are rebelling against ourselves and our own constitutionalism,  not against a King and parliament far away.