Constitutional Debate

“Publius.”

“ Call me James, my good Robert, it is James. Unless you want me to call you ‘Brutus’?”

Robert Yates steps closer. “No. Robert will do well my fellow patriot. A privilege to cross paths with the honorable James Madison.”

“ Tis so ? Judging by your scathing rebuke of our efforts at reforming our Country and gaining approval for this Constitution it seems rather unclear to me. Why must you stand in the way of this reformation? A reform you know well, my good sir, is unquestionably necessary.”

“ Let us discuss, James. Pray tell—how can a republic succeed over so great a territory ? Remember the great Baron Montesquieu who said ‘It is natural for a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist.’ In due time, men of large fortunes and low character will rise thinking they can gain glory by oppressing their ‘subjects’.  In a large republic, the public good will be sacrificed to a thousand views. Whereas in a small republic, the public interest is easily perceived and understood. Abuses would be less and more easily dispensed with. This cannot succeed, James, it cannot.”

“Am I a schoolboy that you quote Montesquieu ? You overlook that the powers granted to the federal government in this proposed Constitution are few and defined. Those that remain in the states are many and indefinite. Further, what limited powers granted to the federal government are for foreign commerce, war—external objects, Robert ! The many that remain for the state and local governments concern all that pertain to the lives, liberties, and properties of the people—the internal objects. So—you see then how we have designed this with full knowledge of the astute observation of the venerable Montesquieu. The small republics of our great states remain thereby avoiding the real threats a republic of great size would no doubt involve.”

“At present our country contains three million souls, James, and is capable of ten times that number. With the distinct possibility of further expansion west, it is capable of, dare I say, one hundred times that number. Mr. Madison sir, in so extensive a republic, the great officers of the federal government would soon become above the control of the people and abuse their power to the purpose of making themselves great and oppressing the people.

 The executive offices, in a country the extent the United-States will someday become, will be various and multiplied. The command of all the troops and navy of the republic, the appointment of officers, the power of pardoning offences, the collecting of all the public revenues, and the power of expending them, with a number of other powers, will become expanded in the federal government. When these are attended with great honor and prestige, as they always will be in large states, so as greatly to interest men to pursue them, and to be proper objects for ambitious and designing men, such men will be ever restless in their pursuit after them. They will use the power, when they have acquired it, to the purposes of gratifying their own interest and ambition, and it is scarcely possible, in a very large republic, to call them to account for their misconduct, or to prevent their abuse of power. Your trust in the nature of man, James, is beyond reasonable.”

“Robert ! Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?”

“The same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests ? You are a man of Virginia and I of New York. Let us dispense with the empty rhetoric—we both know full well the seeds are present to rend our country apart. We cannot agree on matters today !

I believe, Mr. Madison, the future will well vindicate my predictions.  Human nature does not change.”

“Let us enter here and continue this debate Brutus. There is more to say.”


Federalist Papers #14,45,67-70. Brutus #1

Carried

Broken, crippled. 

Have you ever felt the truth of who you are ? There is one who wants to carry you, to bring you to that place of peace. Reach to him—reach and He will carry you.

Wounded and forsaken

I was shattered by the fall

Broken and forgotten

Feeling lost and all alone

Summoned by the King

Into the Master's courts

Lifted by the Savior

And cradled in His arms

I was carried to the table

Seated where I don't belong

Carried to the table

Swept away by His love

And I don't see my brokenness anymore

When I'm seated at the table of the Lord

I'm carried to the table.

The table of the Lord.--Leeland

The Rubicon River

Awakened by my children I look at the news and reading about the national government in partial shutdown I shake my head with thoughts running back to the beginning of our republic. What has happened ?

Many of our Founders were deathly afraid of the federal government. Yet here we are on the cusp of implementing a massive federal program and this after decades of other large increases in the national governments power. The anti-federalists of the Constitutional era argued that the new Constitution would eventually lead to the absorption of the state governments, the combining of the Union into “one great republic” under an unchecked national government, and as a result tyranny. Madison countered that the multiple checks and balances would prevent this and would also greatly slow the processing of the federal government reducing its power. Madison won the day after concessions in the Bill of Rights but 222 years later were the anti-federalists right ? Sadly, I am believing so.

The seed planted at Appomattox has 150 years later grown to result in many ways in the absorption of the rights of states as predicted thus greatly reducing this check. The acquiescence of the Supreme Court to the power of the federal government through the changing not of the checks put into place in the Constitution but instead through the insidious changing of the meaning of its words. The commerce clause, the “necessary and proper” clause have been expanded far beyond their original meaning to now being jokingly called “elastic”. I am not laughing. The Bill of Rights starts by saying “Congress shall make no law…” but through the changing of the meaning of the words in the fifth and fourteenth Amendments have allowed the national government to do the exact opposite of those words.

All this however cannot completely undo the checks. The House of Representatives and Senate must still agree on a bill before presenting to the Executive for approval before law is formed. The House still has authority to originate and approve funding as is evidenced by the current impasse.

 What is our future ?

 I cannot help but think back to another republic—the Roman. Towards its end Cicero famously said

“though the republic, when it came to us, was like a beautiful painting, whose colors, however, were already fading with age, our own time not only has neglected to freshen it by renewing the original colors, but has not even taken the trouble to preserve its configuration and, so to speak, its general outlines. For what is now left of the "ancient customs" on which ... "the commonwealth of Rome" was "founded firm"? They have been, as we see, so completely buried in oblivion that they are not only no longer practiced, but are already unknown. For it is owing to our vices, rather than to any accident that we have retained the name of republic when we have long since lost the reality.”

 As that republic weakened it fell when a strong man, faced with complicated circumstances, pushed the final protective walls of the republic down. He felt he had too of course. Julius Caesar. There was an old law that stated that only the elected magistrates (consuls and praetors) could hold imperium which was the right to command within Italy. To disobey was punishable by death. This was to protect the republic from overthrow.

Standing on the bank of the Rubicon River, about to enter Italy and break this law, Caesar knew the seriousness of his decision. He crossed the river. This would begin what would eventually be the death of the Roman Republic. 

Are we just one serious calamity, one strong leader, one “Caesar” moment away from the final walls of our Republic being torn down ? Is the slowness of the operation of our republic, the “running in mud” designed to prevent tyranny the very thing that would compel someone to cross their Rubicon all out of real or perceived necessity ? Perhaps the current situation is that moment or perhaps it is just another in a line of degradations, the future holding still that fateful moment.

Is there a Caesar standing on the banks of a river ?

Right to hunt deer ?

Have you ever heard/read someone ask that or why people want strong weapons in their possession ? Why they resist the government from tracking ownership ? I mean, if you just want the right to hunt, what is the big deal ?

Do you really think they needed to constitutionalize the right to hunt game with their muskets ?

Then why ?

“The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them” so said Justice Joseph Story in his commentaries on the Constitution in 1833; Commentaries that his contemporary Justice John Marshall (who participated in the Constitutional Convention in 1791) said “It is a comprehensive and an accurate commentary on our Constitution, formed in the spirit of the original text.”

The Founders knew the history in the Colonies and in England where the government would attempt to remove weapons in order to pacify the people. They were well acquainted with the philosopher John Locke and his views on natural law and the right to resist tyranny with force if the government acted against the interests of the citizens. They of course acted so themselves and wanted to preserve this essential and fundamental right for all time by putting it in the Constitution.

This is why we have the Second Amendment today—not simply for self-defense and personal use (like hunting) which are secondary purposes.

Let me be clear I am not advocating rebellion. I believe I am a free man today and am grateful for it. As the Founders knew however that may not always be the case so I reserve the right, my natural God given right, to resist tyranny.

May it never be needed.

Prodigal

Stolen from, cursed, manipulated yet the record shows no wrong.

Thirty years of vagrancy, incarceration and false hope but faith never lost.

Enduring through every circumstance this is the love of the good mother and good father.

Welcome home prodigal. Welcome home.

Tomorrow my brother will enjoy the fatted calf after returning from one year in jail in Florida, repentance all over his spirit. May it be so Lord.

The future is always so uncertain but one thing I know, one thing I have learned the arms of my mother and father are always open, their love never fails. 

Patrick Henry Parody

No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the house is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part, I consider it as nothing less than a question of safety or death.

Mr. President, it is natural for man to indulge in the illusions of freedom. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for life? Are we disposed to be of the numbers of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so clearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am a man who knows the whole truth, knows the worst, and seeks to avoid it.

Writs of Assistance you cry ! Writs of assistance ! The Crown mandates entrance to your homes, forcing examination of your papers and correspondence ! But what is to fear ? Are you a lawbreaker? You know the express purpose of our most dear Sovereign is simply the capture and suppression of acts of terror ! If not so engaged then why must you force the risk of that which is most precious to all men—the ability to live without fear, to live in security for ourselves and our children ?

I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of life. I know of no way of judging except through the lens of the living. And judging by this lamp what conclusion must one reach ? What is the sole thought of a reasonable man ?

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Freedom , Freedom—but what is Freedom ? What is it that gentlemen wish ? What would they have ? Is liberty so dear, or freedom so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of fear and death ? Forbid it, Almighty God ! I know not what course others may take; but as for me,

Give me Safety--do not give me Death !!

Playing Solomon

The recent Supreme Court decision striking down the heart of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)was received like virtually all other decisions they make which is without real objection. Why should we ? Just that pesky Constitution having its way…right ?

I am reminded of a quote from Professor Frankfurter in a letter to President Roosevelt, who would later appoint him a Supreme Court Justice. “People have been taught to believe that when the Supreme Court speaks it is not they who speak but the Constitution, whereas, of course it is they who speak and not the Constitution.”

Are they in fact following the Constitution or are they simply playing Solomon?

In the DOMA decision the majority opinion stated clearly that supporters of conjugal marriage are motivated by bigotry or hatred — a sheer desire to “harm,” “demean,” or “humiliate” others. Justice Kennedy referenced thirteen times “dignity” as in loss of for proponents of homosexual marriage. Are these legal arguments rooted in the Constitution ?

Justice Alito in dissent stated correctly “The Constitution does not guarantee the right to enter into a same-sex marriage. Indeed, no provision of the Constitution speaks to the issue.” Where are they getting this then ? They took the Fifth Amendment’s clause that says “No person shall… be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

What does this “due process” mean ? It is rooted in the ancient Magna Charta and means that a person’s Life, Liberty or Property can’t be taken away from him except by the judgment of his peers via a fair trial. People could not be punished except by the judgment of their peers after a fair trial where they could appear, cross-examine witnesses and put up a defense. Due process of law refers only to trials - to judicial proceedings in courts of law. It does not involve judicial power to override Acts of Congress!

This was not a legal judgment---it was a moral judgment. This was not a dispassionate rendering of our great Constitution but five individuals usurping the legitimate role of what should be left to the representatives of the people. This win for a particular political objective is only a loss for our Republic. Solomon in his wisdom managed to give a disputed baby to the correct mother.The Supreme Court instead of giving the baby to the proper mother has only succeeded in cutting in half something precious—our Constitution.