Federal political system resolve the problem of premature dissolutions of government in

3.5 
State Structure 
The concept of state structure is significant because it serves as a variable of 
commonality for comparative analysis. The working hypothesis, as described in 2.2 
above, is that the USA and Pakistan have similarity in their state structure, yet they 
adopted different political systems. For the purposes of this thesis, 'state structure' 
refers to the composition and origin of a country. According to Montesquieu, a 
'confederate republic' with separation of powers allows equality and identity within 
or between small member units which serve as checks on each other.
156
Hume does not agree with Montesquieu's suggested advantages of smaller states. 
He recommends a federal arrangement for deliberation of laws involving both 
member unit and central legislatures, whereby member units enjoy several powers 
and participate in central decisions, but their laws and court judgments can always 
be overruled by the central bodies.
157
However, in order to safeguard the unity of 
the state, it is argued that the (federal) state should have priority above the 
individual units. This argument is supported by Hume’s contention that central 
government should have powers to overrule the laws and judgments of units.
158
It is worth mentioning in this section that in 1869, a secession attempt during the 
civil war by Texas was invalidated by the Supreme Court of the USA in the famous 
case of Texas v White.
159
In this judgment the Supreme Court declared that the 
United States was 'an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible states'.
160
The opinion of the Chief Justice in Texas v White has been 'widely accepted as being 
the final word on the issue of the legality of secession from the perspective of US 
constitutional law.
161
In Texas v White, the Court seems to have categorically blocked the prospect of 
secession in a way that has not been the case in Pakistan. The reasons why this 
has been the case in the USA and not in Pakistan are explored further in Chapter 
5. It is however worth noting the consequences of unlimited overruling powers of 
156
ibid. 
157
David Hume, Essays : Moral, Political, and Literary (Eugene F Miller ed, 2nd edn, Liberty Fund 
Inc. 1985). 
158
ibid 
159
Texas v White, 74 US 700 (1869). 
160
ibid 725. 
161
Peter Radan, 'An Indestructible Union... of Indestructible States: The Supreme Court of the 
United States and Secession' (2006) 10 Legal History 187.

---

41 
the federal government against individual federating units as a potential danger to 
the entire concept of equal representation of the provinces. 
The early US anti-federalists such as Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee and Samuel 
Adams were highly concerned about the unlimited powers that the federal 
government could exercise.
162
Their concerns give rise to the introduction of the US 
Bill of Rights ratified in 1791.
163
The Bill of Rights in the first ten amendments 
guarantees a number of freedoms, limits the government's powers and reserves 
some powers to the states and the people.
164
The authors of The Federalist Papers, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton 
agreed with Hume that the risk of potential tyranny by 'passionate majorities' was 
reduced in larger republics where member units of shared interest would check 
each other.
165
Madison and Hamilton were concerned to address issues of undue 
centralization and their solution was the appropriate composition of the central 
authority.
166
The philosophical discussions concerning federalism and form of government set 
out above have addressed several issues such as the reasons and need for 
federalism, equal representation, the legitimate division of powers between member 
units and the centre and the systems of checks and balances. In order to 
understand how the founding fathers of the USA addressed these issues and 
incorporated federalism, a further exploration is carried out at 5.1.1.
The next chapter explores the evolution of the constitution of Pakistan within its 
historical context, the instances of irregular regime change and the unusual 
recourse to the doctrine of necessity to justify it. 
162
Richard Labunski, James Madison and the Struggle for the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press 
2006) 15.
163
ibid.
164
The Charters of Freedom. 'Constitution of the United States' 
accessed on 25 October 2018.
165
Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library. 'The Federalist Papers : No. 10' (2008) 
accessed on 25 October 2018.
166
Yale Law School Lillian Goldman Law Library. 'The Federalist Papers: No. 31' 
accessed on 25 October 2018.

---

42