Chapter 17 Chapter 4 About the Constitution-1

When people speak of constitutions and governments, they obviously mean two different things; otherwise why should the two terms be used differently?The constitution is not the decree of the government, but the decree of the government of the people: a government without a constitution is a power without power. All power to govern a state must have had a beginning.It is either granted or usurped.There is no other source.All delegated powers are delegations, and all usurped powers are usurpations.Time does not change the nature of both. In examining this question, the American scene is presented as it was at the beginning of the world, and our examination of the origins of government may find a shortcut through contemporary events.We need not search for material in the dark corners of antiquity, nor risk wild guesswork.We are transported at once to a place where we can see the beginnings of government as if we had lived in the beginnings.The real volume, not mutilated by intrigue or the error of tradition - not a volume of history but a volume of fact - lies directly before us.

I would like here to set forth briefly the origins of the American Constitution: so that the distinction between the Constitution and the government can be seen clearly. The reader may be reminded that the United States of America consists of thirteen states, each of which formed its own government upon the declaration of independence on July 4, 1776.Each State acts independently of the rest in forming its own government; but the same general principle prevails throughout the nation.After the formation of many state governments, they proceeded to organize the federal government, which managed all the affairs of the country concerning the general interests, and at the same time dealt with the mutual or external affairs of the states.I want to start with a state government (Pennsylvania) as an example, and then talk about the federal government.

Although Pennsylvania was about the size of England, it was divided into only twelve counties.At the time of the first dispute with the British Government, each county had elected a committee; and as Philadelphia--which had no committee of its own--was the center of intelligence, it became the center of liaison with several county committees. .When it became necessary to proceed with the formation of a government, the Philadelphia committee proposed that a convention of the county committees be held in that city, and this was held at the end of July, 1776. Although these county committees were originally elected by the people, they were not elected specifically to make a constitution, nor were they empowered to do so; Negotiate matters and start a series of work.The participants, therefore, confine themselves to explaining the situation and recommending to the counties that each county elect six delegates to the convention in Philadelphia, who will have the power to draft a constitution and submit it to public discussion.This meeting--with Benjamin Franklin as its chairman--had discussed and unanimously adopted a constitution, ordered its publication, not as a de facto, but for the discussion of the whole people, for approval or disapproval, and then adjourned until the a certain amount of time.When the adjournment period expired, the meeting was reconvened. Since the public opinion had unanimously approved the constitution at this time, the constitution was signed, sealed and promulgated according to the power of the people, and the original was preserved as an archive.The meeting then fixed a day and a time for the general election of representatives to form the government; when these things were done, the meeting was dissolved, and the representatives each returned to their native villages to attend to their business.

In this Constitution first enacted a Declaration of the Rights of Man; secondly prescribed the form of government and its powers—the powers of the high courts and juries—the manner of election and the proportion of representatives to the number of electors—every The duration of the Congress, which is a one-year period - the method of taxation and the accounting of public expenditure - the appointment of civil servants, etc. The government must ensure the implementation of this constitution, and must not arbitrarily change or violate any of it.This constitution is law to the government.But as it is unwise to exclude the lessons of experience, and to prevent error from being added to error--if any are discovered--and to keep the government at all times in harmony with the circumstances of the state, the Constitution provides that representatives should be elected every seven years. The General Assembly amends the Constitution and, if necessary, alters, adds to, or repeals its provisions.

Here we see an orderly procedure—the government promulgates a constitution drawn up according to the will of the people; this constitution is not only a power, but a law that controls the government. It is the state's political bible.Almost every family has a constitution.Every man in the government has a copy; and whenever there is a dispute as to the principles of an act, or as to the extent of the application of any power, the men of the government take the printed copy of the Constitution from their pockets, and place the chapters concerning the matter in question Read it again, this is commonplace.

After citing a state as an example, let me explain the process of proposing and forming the US Federal Constitution. The first two sessions of Congress, in September 1774 and May 1775, were merely meetings of representatives of local, and later state, legislatures; Besides, there is no other power.In all matters concerning the domestic affairs of the United States, Congress advises only the local assemblies, which they choose, without compulsion; yet, in this case, Congress is more sincerely loved and obeyed than any government in Europe.This example, like that of the French National Assembly, suffices to show that the strength of the government does not lie in itself, but in the love of the people and the advantage they find in supporting it.If this condition is not met, the government is tantamount to a child in power. Although it can exploit the people for a while, like the old French government, it can only promote its own downfall in the end.

After the Declaration of Independence, the powers of Congress could be defined and established, as this was in accordance with the principles upon which representative government was established.Whether this power should be greater or less than what would then be exercised at will is another matter.It is simply a question of whether the measures are correct. To this end, the Act known as the Articles of Confederation—an imperfect federal constitution—was passed in 1781 after a long period of deliberation.This Act is not an Act of Congress, for it is contrary to the principle of representative government that a body should not have powers vested in itself.Congress first informed the states what powers it thought must be vested in the Confederacy in order to perform the duties required of it;

It may be pointed out that in both cases (the one of Pennsylvania and the other of the United States) there is no concept of a contract between the people on the one hand and the government on the other.The peoples generate one another to form a government, and that is the contract.To think that any government can be a party to a contract with all the people is to admit that government existed before it could claim the right to exist.The only contractual relations that can enter into between the people and those who exercise the powers of government are when they have chosen, hired, and paid them.

Government is not a shop which any one or any group of persons has the right to open or run for profit, but a trust which is given to it and which can be withdrawn at any time.The government itself does not have rights, only obligations. After giving two examples of the first formation of a constitution, I would like to describe the changes that have taken place since their enactment. Experience has shown that the powers conferred upon the Governments of the States by their Constitutions are too great, and that those conferred upon the Confederate Government by the Articles of Confederation are too small.This shortcoming lies not in principle, but in the distribution of power.

Many pamphlets and newspapers carried articles on the propriety and necessity of reorganizing the Confederate government.After a period of public discussion in the press and in conferences, Virginia, feeling somewhat inconvenient about trade, proposed a Continental Congress; as a result, representatives from five or six state legislatures met in Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786 Meeting.The conference, not possessing sufficient power of its own to effect reform, expressed only a general opinion as to the propriety of the measure, and recommended that a convention of all the states of the country should be called the following year.

The convention was held in Philadelphia in May, 1787, and General Washington was elected chairman.He had no ties to any state government or Congress at the time.As soon as the War of Independence was over, he was disarmed and returned to the fields to live a civilian life. The General Assembly discussed all the questions in depth; after various debates and investigations, a consensus was reached on the various parts of the Federal Constitution, and the next step was how to ratify and implement this Constitution. To do this, they did not, as ordinary courtiers do, greet a Dutch prefect or a German elector; but left the whole matter to the will and interest of the country. They first directed that this proposed constitution should be published.Next, they directed the states to elect a conference to consider this constitution, to ratify or reject it; and directing that as soon as any of the nine states had ratified and ratified, these states should immediately proceed to elect their new members of the federal government in proportion; The new federal government① shall begin its work, and the old federal government② shall end. Accordingly, several states proceeded to elect their congresses.Some of these conventions overwhelmingly ratified the Constitution, and two or three states unanimously.There were many arguments and differences of opinion at the conventions of several other states.In the Massachusetts convention at Boston, of about three hundred persons, the majority was not more than nineteen or twenty; but it is precisely the characteristic of representative government that all questions are decided by a calm majority.After the debates in the Massachusetts convention were concluded and put to a vote, those who voted against stood up and declared: "Though they had disputed the Constitution and voted against it, because they did not agree with other members on some parts of the Constitution; yet , in view of the result of the vote in favor of the proposed constitution, they should support the constitution with practical actions, as if they had voted for it." With the unanimous consent of the nine states (and the remaining states in succession following the election of state representatives), the old structure of the Confederate government was dissolved and a new federal government was formed, with General Washington as President. Here I cannot refrain from pointing out that the character and service of this gentleman are enough to put all these people who are called kings to shame.While these guys are extracting huge salaries out of people's sweat and sweat that don't commensurate with their abilities and contributions, General Washington is doing everything he can without asking for any monetary compensation. He doesn't get paid as chief executive, and he doesn't get paid when he's president. After the new federal constitution took effect, Pennsylvania felt that some parts of its own constitution needed to be amended, and elected a state constitutional convention.When the proposed amendments are announced and the people agree, they will come into effect. Little or no trouble was encountered in making or revising these constitutions.The normal progress of things was not hindered, but the benefits were great.It is better for the great majority of the people of a country to put things right when they are wrong than to keep them wrong; and no wrong decision can be made in public affairs after open debate and free judgment, Unless the decision is taken too hastily. In both instances where the constitution was amended, the then government was not involved.In debates concerning the principles or manner of forming or amending the Constitution, the Government has no right to make itself a party to the debate.Constitutions (from which governments are created) are not made for the benefit of those who exercise the powers of government.In all these matters, it is those who give the money, not those who get the money, who have the power to decide and act. - translator ②That is, the Confederate government from 1781 to 1789. - translator people. A constitution is owned by the people of a country, not by the rulers.All the constitutional departments of the United States claim to be founded upon the power of the people.In France the word is used, not the people; but in both countries the constitution always precedes the government, and is always distinguished from it. It is not difficult to see that in England there are constitutions for everything but the state.For each social group to be established, it must first reach an agreement on some original regulations, and then organize them into a document. This is the constitution of the association.Then, it appoints some staff according to the functions and powers stipulated in the charter, and the management of the association begins.Regardless of their professional titles, these clerks have no right to add, modify or delete the original provisions.This power belongs only to the statute maker. Dr. Johnson, and all writers like him, have always confused themselves, not knowing the difference between the Constitution and the Government.Of course they knew that somewhere there must be a governing power.They give this power to those who govern, not to a constitution made by the people.If power were given to the constitution, it would have the support of the people, and natural and political jurisdiction would be united.Governments can only govern men as individuals by decree, whereas the nation, by constitution, governs the whole government, and is naturally capable of doing so.The final jurisdiction, therefore, is the same power as the first constitutional power. Dr Johnson certainly cannot take such a position in any country with a constitution: he himself proves that England has no constitution at all.However, there is a question that may be worth asking for study: If there is no constitution, how can it be generally believed that there is a constitution? In order to answer this question, the constitution must be considered in two respects:--first, as regards the establishment of the government, and the powers vested in it, and, secondly, the regulation and limitation of the powers conferred. If we begin with William of Normandy, we shall find that the English government was originally a tyranny established by the invasion and subjugation of the country.Allowing this, it will be seen that the efforts which have been made in this country at different times to lessen the tyranny so intolerable, have always been owed to the Constitution. The so-called Magna Carta (which now resembles a contemporary almanac) merely compelled the government to relinquish some of its powers.It does not create and confer power on the government, as the Constitution does; at most it has the character of a restoration of power, but it is not a Constitution; At that time a constitution will be drawn up. The history of the Edwards and Henrys, down to the beginning of the Stuart dynasty, furnishes innumerable examples of the tyranny which was possible within the limits of the nation.The fate of the Stuart dynasty, which sought to transcend these limits, is well known.In all these examples we do not see a constitution, but only limits imposed on usurped powers. ①Thereafter, another William, from the same family, and professing to be of the same blood, came to the throne; and of these two evils, James and William, the nation chose whichever they considered the lesser; The third part of the Attorney General's indictment, omitted from Symonds' edition, is accompanied by the following note: "The following are four paragraphs on page fifty-second of the original edition, occupying about eighteen lines in the same compact type as this edition. These paragraphs Continuing to argue how the limitations on the powers originally usurped were mistaken for the Constitution. However, since these paragraphs have been included in the indictment report and will be published in the pleadings when the indictment is concluded, they will not be quoted line by line here, only the first paragraph in footnotes to show what the plaintiff side really meant and what was selected for prosecution from the original work. NOTE—Several passages taken from the original work for purposes of prosecution are less than two pages in the same typeface as this It is noted in this edition as it appears in the original." After quoting the first paragraph in the footnote, Paine goes on: "I ask you: Is the plaintiff trying to deny the instance of Edwardian and Henry tyranny? He is trying to deny that Stuart Is the Yate dynasty trying to go beyond the limits imposed by its subjects? Is he trying to prove that anyone who says they have done so is slanderous?" - Original Editor One must be accepted.So came the "Bill of Rights" ② bill.What is this bill if it is not a deal between various branches of government to divide up power, interests and privileges?You can get so much, and the rest is mine; and as for the citizens, the bill says, you have the right of petition, and that's your share.That being the case, the "Bill of Rights" might better be called the Bill of Vile and Scorn.As for the so-called free parliament, it is something that first establishes itself, and then generates the powers to be exercised by it.A few people get together and call themselves by that name.Many of them were not elected at all, and none of them were elected for this purpose. From the time of William, a type of government arose out of this Union Bill of Rights; and this was so exacerbated by the political corruption brought about by the succession of the House of Hanover under Walpole, that it could only be called It is autocratic legislation.While the various parts could check each other, the regime as a whole was not bound by anything; the only right it recognized was the right of petition.Where, then, is there any constitution that confers or limits power?It does not make it any less despotic just because a part of the government is elected, if the elected persons afterwards have unlimited powers as members of parliament.In this case, elections are separated from representation, and the candidates are also candidates for absolutism. I cannot believe that the citizens of any country, when they consider their rights, would think of calling these things a constitution, if the cry of the constitution were not uttered by the government.The word Constitution has become as popular, from being recorded in the speeches of Parliament, as "bored" and "mocking" on the shutters and door-posts; but whatever else the Constitution may be, it certainly is. It is the most productive tax collection machine ever invented.France pays less than thirteen shillings per person under the new constitution, while England pays forty-eight shillings and sixpence per person (including men, women and children) under the so-called present constitution, a total of nearly seventeen million pounds. , not counting the taxation fees amounting to more than one million. In a country such as England, where the whole civil service is carried out by the cities and counties, through the mayors, mayors, quarter courts, juries, and circuit judges, there is no need to bother about the so-called government, and nothing but the salaries of the judges need be paid. The treasury pays, therefore, how such a large amount of tax revenue can be spent is really puzzling.Even the internal defense of the country is not paid for by the treasury.In every case, true or false, there is always a constant reliance on new sympathies and new taxes.No wonder, then, that a machine of government so favorable to court supporters was hoisted into the sky.No wonder St. James's or St. Stephen's like resonate with the constant cry of the Constitution!No wonder the French Revolution is condemned, the Republic is condemned!The English Red Book, like the French Red Book, will explain why. ① Now, as a diversion, I would like to make a point or two to Mr. Burke, and I ask his pardon for my neglect for so long. In his speech on the Canadian Constitution Act, he said: "America never dreamed of such an absurd doctrine." Mr. Burke is really a man of imagination. The conclusions and premises he put forward are so lack of judgment that we don't need to study the principles of philosophy or politics. One of the constitutional documents promulgated by the British bourgeoisie to establish a constitutional monarchy. The bill limits the power of the king and protects the power of the bourgeoisie and the new aristocracy. - translator ①The total tax levied by France this year is 300 million livres, which is equal to 12.5 million pounds; the provisional tax is estimated at 3 million livres, and the total of the two is 15.5 million pounds; Shared among millions of people, less than thirteen shillings per person.France has cut taxes since the Revolution by nearly nine million pounds a year.Before the revolution, the city of Paris paid a duty of more than 30 percent on everything that entered the city.This tax was collected at the gates of the cities.This tax was abolished last May 1, and the city gates were dismantled. --author ①What France calls the "Red Book" is not exactly the same as the English court calendar, but it is enough to show how a huge part of the tax money is squandered. --author The logical conclusion is ridiculous.For example: If government, according to Mr. Burke, is to be founded not on the rights of men, but on rights of whatever kind, then government must in consequence be founded on the rights of something which is not a man. So, what is this kind of thing? Generally speaking, there are no other animals on the earth except humans and beasts; when there are only two things and one of them must be adopted, no matter which one is denied, it is tantamount to affirming the other; therefore, Bo Mr. Clark, by arguing against the rights of men, proves that he is for the beast; and thereby proves that the government is a beast; and, as easy and difficult sometimes explain each other, we now understand the reason for keeping the beast in the Tower of London. ; for their only use, of course, is to show the origin of government.They have a constitutional status.what!John Bull, how much credit you lose by not being a beast.According to Mr. Burke's system, you have to stay in the Tower of London all your life. If Mr. Burke's arguments are not sufficiently serious to be taken seriously, the fault is more his than mine; and as I am willing to apologize to the reader for my insolence, I hope that Apologize for the incident. I return to the subject after paying homage to Mr. Burke for not forgetting him. Lacking a constitution to limit and regulate the insane impulses of power, much of England's laws are unreasonable, and their enforcement vague and questionable. The attention of the English government (I prefer to use that name to that of the British government), since its political relations with Germany, seems to have been wholly absorbed in foreign affairs and tax-raising instruments, as if it were dedicated to these two. as if it exists for a purpose.Domestic affairs were neglected; formal laws still less. Nearly everything is now necessarily determined by some precedent, whether good or bad, whether properly applied or not; and this practice is so common that one wonders whether it arose from a more prudent and far-sighted mind than it appears at first glance. policy. Since the American Revolution, and especially since the French Revolution, it has been the deliberate practice of the British government to preach the doctrine of following precedents drawn from the times and circumstances preceding those events.Most precedents are based on counterproductive principles and opinions; and the older they are the less reliable they are.But if those precedents are connected with the superstitious reverence for antiquity, as monks call sacred relics of saints, most people will be deceived into a trap.Governments are now behaving as if they were afraid to inspire a little thought.They lead him quietly to the grave of precedent, in order to dull his intellect and divert his attention from the field of revolution.They feel that he is moving toward knowledge faster than they would like, and their policy of following precedent is a sign of their fear.This political pope, like the ecclesiastical pope of old, once flourished, is now hastening its extinction.Tattered relics and outdated precedents, monks and monarchs, will all perish together. A government that follows precedent, regardless of its principles, is a very bad government.In many cases, the precedent should be used as a lesson, not as a model, and should be avoided rather than imitated; but the fact is just the opposite, and the precedent is taken as it is, and immediately used as a constitution and law. Precedent is either a policy of ignorance, or it is a virtual admission that government, degenerated by age, can only hobble on the crutch of precedent.How can those who should be proud of being smarter than their predecessors look like a group of ghosts who have lost their minds? John Bull is a nickname for the British or British. - translator ② This paragraph is the fourth article in the indictment against Paine. ——Original Editor Woolen cloth?What a strange attitude towards antiquity!Antiquity may be said to be an age of darkness and ignorance for some purposes, but it leaps into light and wisdom for other purposes. If the doctrine of precedent is followed, government expenses need not remain the same.Why spend so much money on people who do nothing?If there are precedents for all possible things, there is no need for legislation. Precedents can solve all problems like a dictionary.So the government is either old and in need of reform, or the time has come for it to use its ingenuity. Now, we can see a strange phenomenon in which the people and the government run counter to each other in Europe, especially in the United Kingdom-one is looking forward, and the other is looking backward.If the government continues to follow the precedent, and the people continue to reform, they must at last tend towards a rupture; the sooner and more civilly they settle the matter the better. After speaking generally of constitutions as distinct from actual governments, we proceed further to examine the constituent parts of constitutions. Opinion is more divided on this question than on the constitutional question as a whole.That a nation should rightly have a constitution to direct its government was a simple matter on which all but the courtiers would agree. It is only in the composition of the constitution that there are many questions and opinions. But this difficulty, like any other, can be overcome if it is rightly understood. First, citizens of a country have the right to formulate a constitution. Whether the nationals of a country are able to exercise this right in the most proper manner in the first place is another matter entirely.It exercises this right as it judges; and so long as it goes on, every error will at last be corrected. Once this right is established in a nation, there is no fear of it being used to its own detriment.Because citizens are not interested in mistakes. Though all the constitutions of the United States are based upon one general principle, no two constitutions are quite alike in their constituent parts or in the powers which they assign to the present government.Some constitutions have more provisions, while others are simpler.When formulating a constitution, we must first consider what is the purpose of establishing a government?Second, what is the best and cheapest way to achieve those ends? The government is nothing but a national organization whose sole purpose is the benefit of all its citizens—individually and collectively.Every man desires to do his work, and to enjoy the fruits of his labor and property, in peace and security, and at the least expense possible.When this is done, the whole object of government is accomplished. The government is usually discussed as being divided into three main branches.This is the legislative, executive and judicial. But if our judgment were not restrained by the custom of a multiplicity of terms, we may know that civil government consists of only two parts, namely, that which makes laws, or makes them, and that which executes or enforces them.All business of civil government is therefore subordinate to one or the other of these two departments. As for the execution of the law, that is, the judicial power, strictly and precisely speaking, it is the executive power of each country.Anyone must appeal to the right, that is, to make the law enforceable; and besides, we are against the law. It is all acquired by private enterprises and industries and their numerous associations, from which the government (to use a common phrase) takes nothing.When a man plans or carries out improvements, he never has government in mind, and asks who is in it and who is not; all he can hope for is that it will leave him alone.Three or four very stupid official papers are constantly wounding the national spirit of improvement by attributing progress to a single minister.They can also make a big show of attributing the book to a certain minister. --author There is no other clear concept for the formal implementation of .In England, as in the United States and France, this power begins with the magistrate and goes up to all the courts to which the judiciary belongs. What is the purpose of calling the monarchy the executive, I leave it to the courtiers to explain.It is but a name used by the government to enforce its laws; no other name is fit for the purpose.In this regard, the law does not have much power.The law must be supported by the justice of principle and the interest of the people; if the law requires otherwise, it shows that the system of government is defective.Any law that is difficult to enforce is generally not good law. As for the institutions exercising legislative power, different countries adopt different approaches.The U.S. General Department consists of two houses.France has only one chamber, but both countries practice representative systems. The problem is that human beings have been so long and brutally ruled by usurped powers that they have seldom had the opportunity to make the necessary tests of various models and principles of government in order to find the best one, so that until today people have no interest in government. Known, but still inexperienced to determine many details. The objections raised against bicameralism are: first, the lack of unity of the parts of the whole legislature, because when a question is finally decided by vote, the question is still under consideration by the whole, The result is easy to accept new interpretations. Second, since the two Houses vote independently as separate bodies, there is always the possibility (and often, in fact) of a majority being dominated by a minority, in some cases to a very irrational degree. Thirdly, it is unreasonable for the two houses to check or control each other arbitrarily; for it cannot be proved that one house is superior to the other on the principles of just representation.They may be conditioned right, or they may be conditioned incorrectly—thus entrusting power to institutions that we cannot at the same time give the wisdom to use that power and ensure that it is used correctly.This is at least tantamount to a warning of danger. The objection to a unicameral system is that it is often too quick to do things that damage its own reputation.But it should also be remembered that when there is a constitution which defines the powers, and lays down a few principles upon which the legislature acts, there is already a check which is more effective and more effective than any other check. powerful.For example: If a bill like the British Parliament passed as a law on the accession of George I - which called for an extension of the sitting period of Parliament - came before any American legislature, there is a provision in the US Constitution to restrict it, meaning: So far, no more. In order to dispel objections to unicameralism-on the grounds that it was too hasty to act-and at the same time to avoid speaking of the two houses-of which the British Parliament is composed-they seem to have been effectively bought into one, And as a legislative body has lost its own identity.No matter who is the prime minister at any time, just touch it lightly like an opium stick, and it will obey in a daze.But if we look at the respective powers of the two Houses, we shall see that they differ so great, as to expose the unreasonableness of committing power to the one which has no sound judgment to exercise it.The state of English representation, though bad, is much healthier than that of the House of Lords; and people are indifferent to this House of Lords, and never ask what it does.It appears that it has been bought the most and is furthest away from the general interests of the people.In the debate on participation in the Russo-Turkish war, the majority in the House of Lords amounted to over ninety votes, while in the other House it was more than double that, with a majority of sixty-three votes.The progress of Mr. Fox's bill on jury rights also deserves attention.Those called aristocrats are not the target of the bill.They already have more privileges than the bill grants to others.They themselves are the jury, and if any member of that court is prosecuted for defamation, even if convicted, they will not be punished for the first offense. This inequality before the law should not exist in any country .The French constitution stipulates that the law should treat everyone equally, whether it is protection or punishment.Everyone is equal before the law. --author 这一脚注的头十二或十三行为对潘恩的起诉书的第二条（即从“至于说到两院……而且同国民的普遍利益离得最远”这一部分译文。——译者 ). ——Original Editor 免两院制造成的不合理现象甚至荒唐事情，特提出下述方案作为对二者的改进。 第一，全体代表不分院。 第二，通过抽签把全体代表分为两三个组。 第三，对每一个提出的议案先依次在这些组里进行辩论，让它们各自旁听，但不投票表决。此后，全体代表聚会进行总的辩论并投票决定。 为了使代表经常更新，这个改进方案还增加一项：每个国家三分之一的代表在任期满一年之后就要离职，通过选举产生新的代表，另外三分之一的代表于次年任期满后也以同样方式予以更换，每三年举行一次普选①。但是，不论宪法的各个部分是如何安排的，都有一个区分自由与奴役的总原则，这就是：所有统治一国人民的世袭政府乃是对人民的奴役，而代议制政府则是自由。 按政府应作为“全国性社团”加以考虑的这一唯一标准去考虑，它就应当这样地组织，不致因各部分发生意外事件而引起混乱；因此，不应把足以产生这种恶果的特殊权力交给任何个人去掌握。政府中任何一个人的死亡、生病、缺席或失职，对于这个国家来说，都不应比英国议会或法国国民议会一个议员发生同样情况造成更大的影响。