Busybodies Want to Rule the World

"Seeking perfection in human affairs is a perfect way to destroy them." Jaron Lanier

We live perfection. 

Right now. In this moment. No other humans in all of history can make a similar claim. Look about you. Everything is just as it should be. Even the tiniest change will derail spaceship Earth. The planet is over four billion years old, but now is its moment of perfection. How do I know this to be true? Leftists tell me. Incessantly.

• They harangue me that the temperature is just perfect, and it is worth trillions to keep it within a range of one half degree. 
• I’m reassured daily that every little species and sub-species is precious and animal diversity is perfectly aligned for all of eternity. 
• When I wander into the wilderness, I used to adhere to, "take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints." Now footprints are offensive … especially the carbon variety. 
• Every ecosystem is tuned to perfection, and none can be disturbed. 
• All native cultures are sacrosanct and must be preserved as is, with no pollution from Western culture. 
• Food must remain unaltered by man.
• If a building gets older than fifty years, slap a brass plaque on it and committees will preserve it forever … for the well-to-do.
• Apartment rents are perfectly fair and must remain controlled into perpetuity. 
• Do not even think about eliminating a government department or program because each and every one is desperately needed for eternity. 
• Zero population growth assumes the Earth has just the perfect number of people. 

Sustainability is the most powerful word in the English language, which means everything must go on forever and ever. Exactly as is. Want to destroy a movement, idea, or argument, just claim it’s none-sustainable. Want to deflect criticism of a movement, idea, or argument, claim it is vital to sustainability.

Why do Leftists worship the status quo? The simple answer is they’re control freaks.

In truth, Leftists don’t really believe everything is perfect.  They just can’t abide change. Any change. Change is frightening … shake in your boots scary. An educated populous, free speech, social and geographic mobility, and competition cause change. Nasty and unpredictable change. And capitalism is the horror of horrors because it incents massive, continuous change. The uncertainty boggles the mind. Everything must be held in balance or Earth might spin out of control.

The rest of us might ignore these phobic busybodies except for their incessant need to control not just things, but people. People cause change, so uncontrolled people represent a threat. If the public does not submit to the approved theocracy, then the progressive vision might be stifled. That cannot happen, so speech must be policed using political correctness and more stringent means. Ideas need to be managed, debates closed, and science declared settled. Education must be carefully crafted to discourage deviations from the true orthodoxy. If Leftists could only control people, they will achieve stability in their lives and heck, save the planet to boot.

We may wish that they would retreat permanently to their safe spaces, but that will never happen. Safe spaces are used to discipline apostolates, plan insurgencies, and reinvigorate the psyche. After a respite, they re-enter our disorderly world to get people to think, speak, and behave properly. Progressives believe humans can be perfected. People just need direction. Oh, a few less of those pesky humans would help too.

Is it possible for Leftists to achieve their utopian goal of a safe and predictable life for all? Of course. The Dark Ages held change in check for centuries. All you need is enough political power to keep everyone in place. The entire planet can be fundamentally transformed into a safe space. Real perfection can be achieved. Our planetary thermostat will be regulated so that melting icecaps, severe weather, illegal migration, and sweat will become things of the past. Laws will ensure that humans eat only wholesome food prescribed by learned tribunals. Speech will be harmless, albeit boring. To keep the masses pliant, sex will be encouraged for any and all purposes except procreation. Every government bureaucracy will be self-perpetuating with independent funding with no oversight from spiteful elected officials. People in the hinterlands will be rounded up and stuffed into congested cities in order to regulate their daily lives. The remainder of our planet will be set off-limit so nature's critters can frolic unmolested.

It will all work perfectly. Leftists are confident because they have deemed themselves the very best specimens of humanity. They are wise, benevolent, and non-offensive. Besides, Native American reservations have given progressives almost two centuries of experience administering controlled safe spaces.

What could possibly go wrong?

Is the word "all" the most important word in the Declaration of Independence?

 

Abraham Lincoln and Jefferson Davis were interesting characters. Exactly the type of characters a novelist needs to carry a story. In writing Maelstrom, I had a scene where Lincoln addresses Congress after a recess. (As customary at the time, his address was read by a clerk.) Not much has happened during the recess. Eleven states had seceded from the Union, Fort Sumter had been bombarded and surrendered, a piece of Virginia had been occupied, and Lincoln had exceeded his executive powers to spend unauthorized money, build an army, and suspend habeas corpus among other things.

He desperately needed Congress to backfill behind him.

This was a crucial address. Important for Lincoln and the country. The address was not one of his well-known speeches, but I was struck by the clarity and simplicity of the explanation of why he took these actions.

Lincoln said it was a struggle for maintaining a form of government “whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men—to lift artificial weights from all shoulders—to clear the paths of laudable pursuit for all—to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the race of life.”

On the cusp of war, Lincoln repeatedly used the word “all.” He had previously stated that this was the most important word in the preamble to the Declaration of Independence and had reputedly written that word over and over again on pieces of paper.

I cannot think of a loftier goal for government. Perhaps in this age of divisiveness, we should all write the word “all” over and over again.

Democrats Pretend to Care

 

If you listen to Democrats, they’re caring creatures.  Feigning empathy for the plight of others is a cornerstone of identity politics.  But if they really cared, why would their actions not reflect their espoused concerns?  Why would they be caught so often violating their supposed principles?  Why would the lives of their constituents never improve?  The answer is obvious.  Democrats only pretend to care.

Democrats pretend to care about Blacks.

Democrats were the actual slavers, fought to preserve slavery, formed the Ku Klux Klan to keep freed slaves in line, imposed Jim Crow laws to keep former slaves powerless, systemically dismantled Black families, prioritized the placement of abortion clinics in Black neighborhoods, and ran the education system so that Black children remained disadvantaged.  Riots inflict the most damage on the emerging Black middle class.  Arguably, the image of uncontrollable mobs did not enhance race relations in the United States.

Democrats really care about harvesting Black votes every two years.

Democrats pretend to care about the working class.

Long ago, Democrats abandoned the working class.  Complicit with Republicans, Democrats sent our best jobs offshore and imported mass volumes of immigrants to deflate wages and replace working American here at home.  The Democrat approach to trade agreements skew to the advantage of foreign nations.  When President Trump built a robust economy that put America First, Democrats used the pandemic to crush the economy.  Their purposeful strategy is apparent when Blue and Red State pandemic actions are reviewed, and the results examined.  Democrats defend the Chinese Communist Party despite their weaponization of trade, absorption of our key industries, and the infliction of a pandemic on the world.

Democrats really care about the working class as a voting bloc.

Democrats pretend to care about LGBT.

In opposition to LGBT interests, Democrats see virtue in Islam, push for mass immigration of Muslims, and help establish enclaves where their cultural can be preserved intact.  Incongruently, they simultaneously denounce the supposed bigotry in Jewish and Christian religions.  Democrats viciously attack conservative members of the LGBT community, which proves that adherence to Leftist dogma eclipses LGBT sexuality concerns.

Democrats really care about weaponizing sex for political gain.

Democrats pretend to care about a woman’s right to choose.

Choice means that an individual can decide between options, but Democrats try to silence those who advocate for non-abortion alternatives.  Women who choose to abort are celebrated but women who choose not to abort are scorned. Democrats have taken choice away from the mothers of underage girls. Planned Parenthood has located 79% of its Surgical Abortion Facilities in minority neighborhoods. Democrats fight standard medical practices at abortion clinics.

Democrats really care about population control.

Democrats pretend to care about educating children.

Democrats oppose all school reforms including charter schools, magnet schools, vouchers, tax credits, performance incentives, home schooling, and other corrective measures.  They inhibit teacher dismissals for incompetence and misconduct and encourage bloated administrative structures.  Democrat controlled teachers’ unions and have coopted the Parent Teachers Association.  Curriculum has migrated from the three Rs to political indoctrination.

Democrats really care about employing adults in the academic/political complex for the purpose of indoctrinating children.

Democrats pretend that no one is above the law.

Democrats believe laws, rules, ethics, morality, consistency, and truth are in place to constrain Republicans.  Democrats repeatedly shout that no one is above the law, yet illegal immigrants are above the law, Joe Biden’s son is above the law, Adam Schiff’s felony leaking of classified information is above the law, Antifa criminal assault and wanton destruction of property is above the law, Obama’s illegal weaponization of our nation’s intelligence and law enforcement agencies is above the law, and Hillary Clinton’s myriad illegal activities are all above the law.

Democrats really care about using the law to suppress Republicans.

Democrats pretend to care about science.

Democrats use the word science like the word Nazi.  They don’t really believe every opponent is a Nazi and they don’t believe in science.  These words are used to shut down debate.  Much of the science they tout is based on computer models or unverifiable papers related to the soft sciences like sociology, psychology, economics, and gender studies.  They tout as science computer models for climate change, Covid19 spread, socialist economic policies, tax policies, etc. Computer models are not science.  Until their projections are proven to be better than fifty percent accurate, computer models are merely opinion pieces written in computer code.  Hard sciences such as physics, chemistry, biology, astronomy, geoscience remain completely foreign to Democrats.

Democrats really care about scientific claims that further their agenda.

Democrats pretend to care about voter suppression.

Democrats push every change making registration and voting easier, but it has nothing to do with the professed goal of fighting voter suppression.  These actions represent the first step in institutionalizing voter fraud.  The additional steps include fighting all checks against voter fraud, supporting every change that opens a new path to fraud, universal unrequested mail-in ballots, fighting every attempt to cleanse voter rolls, the legalization of vote harvesting, the encouragement of illegal immigration, and the issuance of driver licenses to illegals.

Democrats really care about winning elections by any means necessary.

Democrats have ceased to pretend about some issues.

Democrats ceased pretending to care about bipartisanship, free speech, free enterprise, small businesses, law and order, fair elections, political corruption, and police state tactics.  In addition, Democrats no longer deny that they disdain the Constitution, support gun confiscation, crave a socialist state, revere the UN and WHO, despise the police, endorse open borders, loathe Israel, and are contemptuous of our election process.

President Donald Trump’s greatest accomplishment?  He singlehandedly exposed Democrats for who they really are.

A Republic, if You Can Keep It . . .

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

At the close of the Constitutional Convention of 1787,  Franklin was queried as he left Independence Hall on the final day of deliberation. In the notes of Dr. James McHenry, one of Maryland’s delegates to the Convention,  a lady asked Dr. Franklin “Well Doctor what have we got, a republic or a monarchy.”  Franklin replied, “A republic . . . if you can keep it.”

Our Constitution created a limited representative republic.  A republic is different from a democracy.  In a democracy, the majority can directly make laws, while in a republic, elected representatives make laws.  Basically, in a pure democracy, the majority has unlimited power, whereas in a republic, a written constitution limits the majority and provides safeguards for the individual and minorities.

In the United States, we actually have both systems.  There is no way for Americans to directly enact legislation at the national level, but half of the states allow ballot initiatives which, if passed by a majority of the voters, have the force of law.

The Founders’ intent at the national level was a representative republic.  The word democracy is not mentioned in the Constitution.   Most of the Founders distrusted pure democracy.  Some had been frightened by Shays Revolt and equated democracy with mob rule. Others were convinced by Madison that different factions would come together until they formed a majority, and then take advantage of those who were not members of their coalition. In fact, Madison showed that throughout history, this phenomenon had destroyed every experiment in democracy.

John Adams wrote that “There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide,” and James Madison wrote in Federalist 10 that “Democracies have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” The reason pure democracies fail is that majorities learn that they can legally take property and/or liberties away from others. Those subjected to abuse can be anyone outside the majority coalition, and their minority status can be based on race, religion, wealth, political affiliation, or even which city or state they reside in. Demagogic leaders become adept at appealing to the emotions of jealousy, avarice, and entitlement. They also denigrate opponents in order to justify prejudicial actions taken by the majority.  Soon, oppression of minority classes causes enough conflicts to collapse the democratic process.

A major difference between a republic and a democracy is immediacy. The Founders wanted laws made by representatives in order to put a buffer between popular passions and legislation. In a democracy, decisions are made in the heat of the moment, while periodic elections in a republic provide a cooling off period. To a great extent, democracies are ruled by feelings, while in a republic, the rule of law governs. In a republic, politicians can take principled actions that go against the will of many of their constituents with the knowledge that they will be judged by all the actions they take during their entire term in office. Political leaders are also given time to explain the reasons for their actions.

Of course, if an elected official does something grievously offensive, then the voters can follow the advice of Alexander Hamilton, who in Federalist 21 wrote, “The natural cure for an ill-administration, in a popular or representative constitution, is a change of men.” 

When the people’s will is thwarted, regular elections give them the opportunity to dismiss their representatives and appoint new ones.

Capitalism beats socialism ... every time

Socialism takes from people who produce to give goods and services to the "less fortunate." It is done under the premise of fairness. Everyone should benefit from the largess of the wonderful world that surrounds us all.

The prior paragraph may sound appealing, but there are three fatal errors embedded in the premise.

1. Fortune has little to do with income

2. Fairness is in the eyes of the beholder

3. The world is dangerous, not wonderful.

The term “less fortunate” makes it sound like success depends on luck. Except, what happens to “luck” under a socialist system. Under socialism, scarcity is the order of the day. Even commodities like toilet paper are in short supply. If “luck” brought all these goods to market under capitalism, why doesn’t “luck” deliver the goods under socialism?

If a person produces something through brawn, wits, or practiced skill, that person believes that fairness dictates that they should be able to keep what they produce. It doesn’t matter whether that “fortunate” person is a plumber, entrepreneur, or NFL player. Socialism sees fairness differently. People with more must give their “fair share” of what they produce to others. The recipient probably thinks it’s fair, but producers feels abused.

Advanced societies live in a wonderful world, but its wonders are due to capitalism. Our hardscrabble world offers no “largess” free for the taking. Before Adam Smith, the hoi polloi found food scarce, work backbreaking, bug-ridden shelters unpleasant, support systems nil, and life short. That was the world before capitalism. In fact, that’s the world today in the underdeveloped world. Life is harsh without capitalists to scrape the burrs off.

Those who can’t demand more than minimum wage want to believe that their problems result not from sloth, but from ill fortune, theft, or a rigged system. Socialism appeals to the indebted, the lazy, and the unskilled. For a period, socialism works, but socialism soon converts the productive into the skillfully lazy. Everyone is equal, but equally without. Except for the commissars and their friends and family. They live well. You see, socialism is really about trading places. The politically powerful trade places with the people who used to build stuff, create nifty things, or get it to market. The operative phrase in that sentence is used to. They no longer own the product of their sweat or wits, so they live off their already accumulated wealth, move, or cozy up to the state. Thus, no toilet paper.

Whenever capitalism and socialism are pitted against each other, capitalism always wins. Wherever and whenever free markets are allowed to reign, people are better off. All the people. Inequality grows, but inequality grows under socialism as well. The difference is that the socialist ruling class disguise their lifestyle while under capitalism, the rich revel in it. Why does capitalism work so much better than romanticized socialism? I can explain in one word.

Rewards.

That’s why capitalism wins. Always. Rewards for hard work. Rewards for being clever. Rewards for endless training in a sport or performing art. Rewards for taking risks. Rewards for developing skills needed by society. Even rewards for showing up on time.

Socialism? Not so much. Under socialism the only rewards are for exercising raw political power or being connected to raw political power.

That’s why socialism sucks. Big time.

Here’s an idea on how to fix Congress!

My grandson graduated from middle-school, so I’ve been in New York City for the last week. My visits are always fun because my three New York grandchildren will have it no other way. Sometimes we get time to do something other than attend school events, sport games, and dance recitals. Yesterday, I met an old friend from Arizona for lunch. Michael E. Newton wrote Alexander Hamilton: The Formative Years and other nonfiction history books. Hamilton, of course, played a major role in Tempest at Dawn, so despite my emphasis on fiction, we developed a friendship based on a shared love of history.

After discussing book marketing, writing projects, and American history anecdotes, Michael shared a modern-day political idea that has shown some recent popularity. A congressperson today represents an average of 710,000 people. When we adopted the Constitution, each member represented no more than thirty thousand people. Michael suggested that we return to an upper limit of thirty thousand constituents. I laughed. That would make the United States Congress as large as the Star Wars Imperial Senate. I told Michael I didn’t want to pay taxes for a building large enough to hold so many representatives. He asked why they needed to be in a single building? In fact, why did they need to be in Washington D.C at all?

The intent of this movement is to make the House of Representatives once again answerable to the people.  If congresspersons remained in their districts and participated electronically with Congress as a whole, then they would be surrounded by their constituents rather than lobbyists and the House leadership. Further, if a congressperson only represented thirty thousand citizens, individuals would have more personal contact with their representative and greater influence over legislation. If we could pull this off, we would decrease the power of lobbyists and the establishment by geographically decentralizing the House, while increasing the power of the people by making their representative a neighbor. 

An additional benefit is that staff salaries and office expenses would siphon money out of the richest zip codes in America and disperse it to the hinterlands, from where it came in the first place. I count that as win/win.

Are there negatives? Of course. The senate would undoubtedly be further captured by lobbyists, the media, and party apparatchiki. They’ll probably even become haughtier, if that’s possible. But wait, there’s more. We could send senators out to state environs, as well. Maybe we require them to work in the state capital, maybe even the capitol itself. The Framers wanted the Senate to protect the states, and this might move us closer to the Framers’ vision. Although senators would remain popularly elected, proximity to local politicians would provide the states with additional influence over their prima donnas.

The whole idea is a pipe dream, but an intriguing pipe dream nonetheless. Maybe we could bribe them to go along by doubling their salary. It would be a bargain at twice the price.

Read my essay at Constituting America on the personal price of serving in Congress.

Constituting American Begins Eighth Annual 90-Day Study

The core mission of Constituting America is to educate Americans about the Constitution

Constituting America has initiated its eight annual 90-Day Study. This year, the study is titled Fire on the Floor, and looks at the "Founders’ vision and purpose for a legislature that belongs to, is comprised of, and serves the American people." The essays have already started posting, so take a read here.

I've agreed to write essays on these five subjects.

• Why the Legislative Branch is listed first in Article I of the United States Constitution
• How Congress is designed by America’s Founders so a king could not rule, but instead the American people rule within a civil society
• The United States Congress versus the Confederate Congress During the Civil War
• What should and should not be placed in a bill to keep legislation easy to understand and appropriate
• Impact that running for elected office, and serving in Congress, has on the members and their families

2018 Essays

Ryan Cooper writes "America's Constitution is terrible"

Ryan Cooper has an opinion piece in The Week with the provocative title, "America's Constitution is terrible. Let's throw it out and start over."

He starts by saying, " The American Constitution is an outdated, malfunctioning piece of junk — and it's only getting worse."

What's wrong, you say? Well, that damned parchment is interfering with him and his cohorts from governing in the fashion they believe best for all of us. How will we ever turn the United States into a European country with that odious “piece of junk” in the way?

He has a prescription, of course. As the intellectual equal of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Benjamin Franklin, et al, Cooper defines five brilliant changes to our countries most sacred document.

1. Get rid of the Senate filibuster—super majorities are undemocratic
2. Radically change the way House members are elected—gerrymandering is just plain wrong
3. Neuter the Senate—too damn much power to low-population states
4. Elect the president from the House—a separately elected president “increases tyranny and undermine democracy”
5. Throw the entire Constitution in the garbage—git rid of the “ancient, janky mechanisms of the American Constitution”

Happy Birthday, Mr. Madison

March 16, 2014 marks the 263rd birthday of James Madison. 

In his later years, James Madison protested being referred to as the Father of the Constitution. He said the document was not “the off-spring of a single brain.” Our Constitution was actually the off-spring of fifty-five brains, although none were as potent as Madison’s. James Madison was arguably the most important Framer—before, during, and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

James Madison

Before the Constitutional Convention

In 1786, the country was at peace, but struggling. Congress called for a convention at Annapolis to offer amendments to the Articles of Confederation, but the meeting never convened due to the lack of a quorum. James Madison and Alexander Hamilton made a pact to promote another convention for the following year in Philadelphia.

Voting rights in the Constitution

Some accuse Constitutional Conservatives of wanting to return our country to slavery and restricted voting rights. This is deflection. Constitutional conservatives want the government to adhere to the Constitution, including amendments, so this argument is specious. Amendments have solidified American positions on these issues and these amendments are part of the supreme law of the land.

Many also harbor misunderstandings about how the main body of the Constitution addressed slavery and voting rights. Despite obvious shortcomings, by 1775, the American colonies were the most democratic places on earth. In Britain, voting rights were far more limited than in the colonies. Less than ten percent of men could vote in Britain, and those who could vote were selected by local nobility. A far larger segment of men voted in the colonies and the requirements were set by law, not officials. Voting rights traced back to the earliest history of the colonies. Within days of landing in Jamestown, for instance, the first colonists elected an executive officer. Only six men were allowed to vote in this embryonic colony, but from that moment forward, colonists expanded the right to vote to broader segments of the population.

The Anti-Constitution Mercenaries

In the past, I blogged at What Would The Founders Think? One of my articles was titled, “The Founders Fear.” The article asserted that the Founders architected a limited government because they feared unrestrained power. This was written way back in 2011, but I received a scolding from a troll last week. Reeve wrote: 

Why did the colonists revolt?

In the five centuries following the Magna Carta (1215), Englishmen had gradually gained individual rights, so that by the late eighteenth century, the English were beginning to exercise a degree of self-government. The King and nobility still wielded substantial power, but Parliament had gained increasing authority, especially the elected House of Commons. 

Toward the end of this period, the opinions of those outside the aristocracy were increasingly influenced by the Enlightenment, an intellectual movement of the seventeen and eighteenth centuries. Enlightenment thinkers began to challenge existing religious, government, and social norms, and pushed for additional individual liberty and the free exercise of natural rights. They argued that mankind not only had a capacity for self-government, but that it was a natural right. Through an evolutionary process, Englishmen grew to enjoy an ever-increasing say over who made the laws that governed their lives. That is, those Englishmen who lived in England. If an Englishman happened to live in one of the British colonies, he was still a mere subject of the crown with no representation in Parliament.

Benjamin Franklin  before Lords in Council in Whitehall Chapel

Our American Heritage

The colonists did not only revolt against taxes; they revolted to stop the British from taking away the self-governance they already had been exercising since the earliest colonization. The crown appointed governors for the colonies, but over three thousand miles of ocean in the day of wind-powered ships gave ordinary Americans more freedom than a minor noble living in Bristol, England. (Connecticut and Rhode Island even elected their own governors.) Americans bristled over dictates from Parliament because colonial legislatures had been exercising substantial power for well over a century.

Plymouth Plantation Today

A Time of Civil Debate

A rowdy debate consumed nearly everyone in the United States between the Constitutional Convention and ratification. The population of the country was about four million and possibly a quarter of that number were activists during the Revolution and founding. What did people think about a constitution written in secret? We don’t have to guess. A prodigious number of articles and pamphlets were published by proponents and opponents.

Can Tempest at Dawn be taken seriously?

Tempest at Dawn is a novelization of the Constitutional Convention. As a novel, it is not bound by the rigorous constraints of a nonfiction history book, but it does not deviate from the historical record except for modernizating language, re-sequencing of debates for logical presentation, and attributing a few speeches to a different delegate because that person was already established as a character. It’s confusing to tell a story with more than sixty characters, so I had to choose a representative sample and occasionally attribute to them the words or actions of others.

The real story of our nation's founding.

James Madison’s comprehensive convention notes provided a solid framework for what happened inside the locked doors of the Pennsylvania State House. The events outside the State House occurred, but literary license was used because there were very few recorded details about them. For example, Franklin’s dinner, the John Fitch Steam Boat demonstration, horse races, and George Washington having a carriage built were all outside activities during the convention.  The Fourth of July celebration happened pretty much as portrayed, and delegates did witness a two story house being moved down the street. 

Other than speeches, conversations were speculative, but based to a large degree on what must have been discussed in private meetings to shift the votes and opinions expressed in the proceedings.

How to study the Constitution

The study of the Constitution can seem daunting to those who want to gain a greater understanding of this unique document. To begin with, there are eight historic periods that shaped our Constitution. 

1. Constitutional Convention
2. Public debate on Constitution as reflected in the Federalist and Antifederalist Papers
3. State Ratification Conventions
4. First Congress and Bill of Rights
5. George Washington precedents
6. Supreme Court Rulings
7. Amendments beyond the Bill of Rights
8. Executive encroachment with emphasis on Jefferson, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, and Obama

As a constitutional conservative, I recommend starting with the convention and the Framers. Besides, it’s always a good idea to start at the beginning.

There are countless history books on the Constitutional convention. In these books, the convention is usually presented in one of two ways: chronologically or by subject.

The Atlantic Joins the Chorus: Constitution Defunct

Alex Seitz-Wald

“America, we've got some bad news: Our Constitution isn't going to make it.” That is the lead sentence in The Atlantic article: “The U.S. Needs a New Constitution—Here's How to Write It,” by  Alex Seitz-Wald, Salon's political reporter. Seitz-Wald quotes none other than Thomas Jefferson to justify his claim that “it's time to think about moving on.” Jefferson had famously written that Constitutions should be rewritten every nineteen years. Jefferson certainly qualifies as a founding father, but he had nothing to do with the Constitution. He was in Paris in the summer of 1787 and returned miffed that he had been left out. None of the actual delegates wanted to repeat the convention experience, and all believed they had written a constitution for what George Mason called “millions yet unborn.”

Seitz-Wald  writes, “If men (and, finally, women) as wise as Jefferson and Madison set about the task of writing a constitution in 2013, it would look little like the one we have now.” I suspect those wise men and women would all be required to think in lockstep with Mr. Seitz-Wald.  Again, not true of the 1787 delegates who possessed myriad ideas and perspectives.

The Heritage Guide to the Constitution

A reference Book for Every American Home

Many Americans have taken to carrying a copy of the Constitution. No one will want to lug around The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, but the book is an indispensable reference companion. The first words in the book read, “The Heritage Guide to the Constitution is intended to provide a brief and accurate explanation of each clause of the Constitution as envisioned by the Framers and as applied in contemporary law.” It achieves this goal admirably.

As you would expect from the Heritage Foundation, this is an Originalist reference book, and the editors have done an excellent job of explaining the Constitution as envisioned by the Framers. But it also explains the Constitution as applied in contemporary law, which means the book describes how courts have interpreted the Constitution.

Commentary—As California Goes, so Goes the Nation?

If the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted. — Noah Webster

My wife and I are vacationing in Southern California. The warm and sunny weather has made a perfect respite from the storms lashing our home in Nebraska. We both grew up in California, but moved out-of-state twenty-five years ago. We weren’t fed up with the place. A quarter century ago California was still livable. Actually, California is still livable, as long as you have piles of cash and a fondness for government.

Beltway elites like to fixate on a couple botched 2010 Senate races, but in truth that election was a rout for progressives. Republicans captured an additional 63 seats in the House of Representatives to win the majority, the largest midterm seat change in seventy years. Republicans gained 6 seats in the Senate, but not enough to gain control. Republicans won a record 680 additional seats in state legislatures. Five states saw both chambers switch from Democrat to Republican. In four additional states, Republicans flipped one of the chambers to give them control of both chambers. In three more states, Republicans increased their control in both houses, and in four states they picked up one chamber to split control of the legislature. Republicans also saw a net increase of six governorships to gain a national majority.

The Founders on Limited Government

Governments govern … which means they exercise power.

James Madison wrote, “The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse.” 

Fear of an overly powerful government was a basic principle of the Founders. They firmly believed liberty could not exist with unrestrained government.  Many modern Americans find this belief odd or quaint. After all, a powerful government is needed to right all the wrongs in this world. And there are so many wrongs. Certainly benevolent rule is preferable to wrongs perpetuated on innocent people. Except all-powerful government has been the norm throughout history … and people have been duped, subjugated, robbed, imprisoned, and even murdered by governments.

The Founders weren’t paranoid; they came by their fear of power through personal experience and their study of history. They believed governments oppress and liberty depended on decentralized authority and potent restraints on the abuse of power.

To prevent the government from becoming overly powerful, the Founders used a number of techniques:

• Enumerated powers
• Three branches of government with power balanced between them
• Each branch was given checks on the exercise of power by the other branches
• A federal system with the states acting as a check on the national system
• Different terms of office for elected and appointed officials
• Limited taxing authority (Superseded by the 16th Amendment)
• A list of things the government could not do ... commonly called the Bill of Rights