Constant Conservative

Once upon a time a little red hen called all of her Obama-stimulus-supporting neighbors together and said, “If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat.  Who will help me plant it?”

Read the rest . . .

Evan Schwartz is concerned that we do not live in the here and now with reference to the Second Amendment and Washington, DC:

The issue, of course, is scribbled on a piece of paper more than 200 years old. The Second Amendment to the Constitution guaranteed people the right to arm themselves in order to form state militias. Nowadays most Americans are too fat to even make it on the bus to basic military training, but that does not preclude them from owning multiple guns, in their minds.

The Second Amendment guaranteed people the right to arm themselves. The same amendment also speaks to the citizens participating in the militias. Those are two separate things–as the US Supreme court (the modern one, not the one from really long ago) reaffirmed in Heller. Of course, that position had already been clearly limned by an American named Tench Coxe, who was also, unfortunately, writing almost 200 years ago. Here’s a bit more from Mr. Schwartz:

The NRA and other interest groups have seemingly limitless funds to throw at things like the Firearms Regulations Act, but they need to understand reality. Reality is that little thing that exists despite a document that was written before the invention of child gunlocks, penicillin and “The Matrix.” It was written before presidential assassination attempts or Virginia Tech.

I sense a bit of document-ageism in the preceding statements. Are we to discount everything that was not written in the last generation? If so, are we not to find out, to our shame and pain that history does repeat itself and we should have studied more history and spent less time on, well, whatever one studies in place of history these days? Do we throw away everyone from Adam Smith to Abraham Lincoln because their ideas predate the iPod and Botox?

It is past time that the states remember that their power in many ways exceeds that of the federal government (under a strict reading of the US Constitution). Neal at Cato is having none of the argument that the federal government has the right to meddle with areas of law and governance which are not explicitly called out:

Unfortunately, Greg misses the clear point of both the Federalist and Constitution concerning federal-state relations. The federal government is given only specific, enumerated powers (see Article 1, Section 8) and all others are reserved to the states or people. It’s put that simply in the Tenth Amendment, and Madison was very clear in Federalist no. 41 that no reading of the Constitution, not even the vaunted “general welfare” clause, gives the federal government authority to be involved in anything outside of the specific, enumerated powers.

“For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power?” Madison asks. “Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars.”

It has been said that “politics makes strange bedfellows.” And, while this expression goes back to the days of sharing a bed with whomever (of the same gender, usually) when one stopped at an inn, many find it no less true today.

I recently received a press release from a group which is supporting Initiated Measure 10 here in South Dakota. In part, it states that the NEA (National Education Association) is opposing IM10 with a substantial contribution, therefore those of us who find nothing to like about the NEA should think again about being on the same side of this issue as it is.

As I have stated to a number of people over the last few days, in conversation, via email and on this website: I am against IM10 because I believe it to be bad law, not because I find any problem with holding people (and governments) properly accountable for any actions which would appear to be causing conflicts of interests in the public sphere.

• Do I personally find the NEA to hold the antithesis to 99% of what I stand for as a conservative? Yes.
• Do I find it thought-provoking that the NEA is spending over a million dollars in little old South Dakota to defeat this measure? As that moose-shootin’ governor would say “You betcha.”
• Am I (my children, wife, father, mother, brother, sister, uncles, aunts, cousins, grandfather, or any other person defined as a “relative” under this measure) receiving anything from the NEA or anyone else to take the position I have with regard to IM10? No.
• Will I be more than happy once election day has come and gone and the NEA and I can stop sharing the same bug-ridden bed with regards to IM10? Absolutely.
• Am I ready to support a simple law which will address any needed gaps in current constitutional or statute law in reference to contracts, donations, funding, and such matters? Yes.

I close this explosion of digital bits by once again quoting Thomas Paine:

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered;

A few words, some Common Sense, from that irascible patriot, Thomas Paine, are in order:

I draw my idea of the form of government from a principle in nature, which no art can overturn, viz. that the more simple any thing is, the less liable it is to be disordered; and the easier repaired when disordered; and with this maxim in view, I offer a few remarks of the so much boasted constitution of England.

He goes on from there to explain why the constitution of England is not a many-splendored thing, but I take from this brief statement his approval of an approach to governance which is perhaps more interested in removing laws (or at least keeping them as simple as is absolutely possible) than in creating and promulgating new ones. Unfortunately, he would see little in our current system of government (at almost any level) which supports such an approach.

In short, and it pains me to say this, we are guilty of believing that complicated is good and simple is bad: an extension of the thinking that there are no “cut and dried” issues anymore and that everything is some shadowy shade of gray.

Book to Read

• Common Sense at Amazon

The title of this article is borrowed from a little book called The Conscience of a Conservative written by the other Barry known to politicians: Barry M. Goldwater.

The author states the following, followed by the title of this article:

The Conservative looks upon politics as the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. The Conservative is the first to understand that the practice of freedom requires the establishment of order: it is impossible for one man to be free if another is able to deny him the exercise of his freedom. But the Conservative also knows that the political power on which order is based is a self-aggrandizing force; that its appetite grows with eating. He knows that the utmost vigilance and care are required to keep political power within its proper bounds

He was right in 1960; he is still right today.

The US Constitution was crafted by a handful, practically speaking, of individuals who were careful to establish and perpetuate that government which was best suited to ensuring that the freedoms of the majority and minority were both taken into account in such a manner to ensure that balance could be maintained. Yes, slavery was not addressed and proscribed, as it ought to have been. Surprisingly, the people who wrote the Constitution had to hammer out any number of compromises to come up with a document which they thought would be able to be ratified. The issue of slavery was therefore shelved for about 80 years, then pulled off the shelf for an extremely bloody review and revision. I’m not claiming perfection on part of those who are commonly called the Founding Fathers. I am claiming that they were interested in encouraging the practice of freedom; that they were conservatives at heart, by design, and by decree.

It is past time for some exercise of the “utmost vigilance and care . . . to keep political power within its proper bounds.”

Book to Read

• The Conscience of a Conservative at Amazon

I realize that the title is redundant. Nonetheless, I was reminded of this by a friend who emailed me a list of the preambles to the State Constitutions and said I might find information for an article within it. Indeed I did. Before I go there, I would like to note that I have pages on this site for each of the state constitutions (some with more complete information than others). For all of the states whose current constitutions have preambles, I have included the preamble on the appropriate page.

My friend’s email pointed out that state after state explicitly declared in its preamble that what was being done (the creation of the state or the re-creation of the constitution, as the case might be) was being done with gratefulness to God, or by the allowance of Providence, or some similar wording.

South Dakota’s current constitution is an excellent example. The preamble reads as follows:

“We, the people of South Dakota, grateful to Almighty God for our civil and religious liberties, in order to form a more perfect and independent government, establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and preserve to ourselves and to our posterity the blessings of liberty, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the state of South Dakota.”

Similarly, there is a reason we have “In God We Trust” on our coinage and paper money: we understand full well that there is no one else we can trust implicitly and completely.

As I continue this series on the Federalist Papers, I should note that once again, Federalist No. 4 is by John Jay and is an extension of the arguments which he began in Federalist No. 2 and continued through Federalist No. 3.

Officially the title of this paper is “The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence.” (I know, they must not have had editors who were reluctant to use the same headline twice in those days.)

Full text is available at the Library of Congress.

Within this paper, Jay addresses the details of the current state of affairs between the States and several foreign nations in support of a single national government to the end of protecting the people of the several states most effectively.

After reminding his readers of the topic at hand, the author states a truism:

[N]ations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans.

Ah, yes. People go to war for many reasons, but all of them based on desire. It does rather remind me of the “From whence come wars and fightings from among you, come they not even of your own lusts” statement in the New Testament book of James.

Now, on to a list of several things which were in the news (and may have even been addressed in the same newspaper and at the same time as Federalist No. 4):

With France and with Britain we are rivals in the fisheries
[snip]
In the trade to China and India, we interfere with more than one nation
[snip]
Spain thinks it convenient to shut the Mississippi against us on the one side, and Britain excludes us from the Saint Lawrence on the other

In short, “if you think we do not need to be concerned about working with other nations (and being strong enough to hold our own in any conflict which might arise” let me give you a few things to consider.

At this point, Jay goes back to the benefits (in essence, efficiencies) which can be gained in the international sphere by having a single, strong, federal government as opposed to many states or confederacies. The following is a particularly strong argument (in my own perspective):

What would the militia of Britain be if the English militia obeyed the government of England, if the Scotch militia obeyed the government of Scotland, and if the Welsh militia obeyed the government of Wales? Suppose an invasion; would those three governments (if they agreed at all) be able, with all their respective forces, to operate against the enemy so effectually as the single government of Great Britain would?

After hammering on the issue of common defense (to borrow a phrase from the Constitution itself), Jay sums up his argument, or at least this portion of it, as follows:

If . . . they find us either destitute of an effectual government (each State doing right or wrong, as to its rulers may seem convenient), or split into three or four independent and probably discordant republics or confederacies, one inclining to Britain, another to France, and a third to Spain, and perhaps played off against each other by the three, what a poor, pitiful figure will America make in their eyes! How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.

This last bit reminds me of exactly what happened during the War Between the States. Looking through the lens of history, one could say that Jay knew rather what he was talking about. Of course, by this time in his life, Jay was well experienced in matters political and diplomatic, being responsible to sort out the matter of whether the United States would be able to freely navigate the Mississippi (then under the control of Spain) among other matters.

Audio of Federalist No. 4 may be found at Americana Phonic. (If you’ve not listened to one of these, please do so. They are very well done and a pleasure to listen to.)

Books to Read

• The Federalist Papers at Amazon
• John Jay: Founding Father at Amazon

This third paper is once again written by John Jay. It is largely an extension of Federalist No. 2 in regards the need for unity among the citizenry, as evidenced by all joining together within the single national government.

The official title of this paper is “The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence.”

Full text may be found here at the Library of Congress.

Jay begins by telling his audience that they are smart folks:

people . . . [who are] . . . intelligent and wellinformed) seldom adopt and steadily persevere for many years in an erroneous opinion respecting their interests.

Of course, what he is doing here is claiming that smart people don’t make bad decisions and stick with them. Therefore, the decision to come together as one people within a nation (rather than separate states or confederacies) was a good one, so don’t mess it up now.

Shortly after this comes the part which addresses the most basic need for government:

preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from FOREIGN ARMS AND INFLUENCE, as from dangers of the LIKE KIND arising from domestic causes.

I would that our own modern federal government would focus on this: protection from without and protection from within.

John Jay follows this by laying out a case for a national government being comprised of the best of the best. In essence, stating that cream rises to the top. Then, he states that wars (the American Revolution being still very fresh in people’s memories) would of necessity be fewer for a variety of reasons which he elucidates as follows, if there is a unified national government rather than simply the several states or confederacies of states:

Because, under the national government, treaties and articles of treaties, as well as the laws of nations, will always be expounded in one sense and executed in the same manner
[snip]
Because the prospect of present loss or advantage may often tempt the governing party in one or two States to swerve from good faith and justice; but those temptations, not reaching the other States, and consequently having little or no influence on the national government, the temptation will be fruitless, and good faith and justice be preserved.
[snip]
But the national government, not being affected by those local circumstances, will neither be induced to commit the wrong themselves, nor want power or inclination to prevent or punish its commission by others.

In short, the national government has to look after everyone, therefore it will not engage in precipitous actions, whereas a state government might do exactly that. (I wonder if this would hold true when one considers that those who make decisions today at the federal level are so far removed from specific state situations that they seem most influenced by whoever has their collective ear, rather than the best interests of the nation or individual state.)

The author finishes this particular paper by a raw appeal to the need for power in international relations:

. . . acknowledgments, explanations, and compensations are often accepted as satisfactory from a strong united nation, which would be rejected as unsatisfactory if offered by a State or confederacy of little consideration or power.

Ah yes, make sure you have enough allies (the other states) on your side of the schoolyard that any bully who is there might think twice about coming over and throwing his weight about. Of course, the colonies had just defeated such a bully (as many of Jay’s readers saw it, in throwing out the British) under the auspices established by an earlier unifying document: the Articles of Confederation.

As always, here is the audio for Federalist No. 3.

Books to Read

• The Federalist Papers at Amazon
• John Jay: Founding Father at Amazon

This second paper was the first one of the series written by John Jay (later to become the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court). In it, he takes a bit of a different tack than was Hamilton’s approach in the first paper. Jay appeals more strongly to a sense of unity and the simple rightness (or perhaps even practicality) of adopting the constitution.

The official title of this paper is “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence.”

The full text of this paper may be found here at the Library of Congress.

Near the beginning of the paper, Jay somewhat forcefully takes his readers to task for forgetting what seem to be fundamental truths, including the fact that any government must get (take over) some rights from the people:

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government, and it is equally undeniable, that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights in order to vest it with requisite powers.

He also makes what, today, would be considered an unseemly appeal to a common culture:

With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.

Of particular interest is the clause which speaks to “professing the same religion.” Jay does not elucidate that statement, since everyone reading the paper knows exactly what he is talking about.

Unlike Hamilton (actually, in some contradiction with him in Federalist No. 1), John Jay tells the people that those who put together this Constitution have done so from the purest of motives:

In the mild season of peace, with minds unoccupied by other subjects, they passed many months in cool, uninterrupted, and daily consultation; and finally, without having been awed by power, or influenced by any passions except love for their country, they presented and recommended to the people the plan produced by their joint and very unanimous councils.

(On a very minor language usage note, I see in the “very unanimous councils” an early relation to the “very unique” of today.)

After continuing on about those who have assembled the Constitution and pointedly explaining that this document is not being forced upon the people, but rather given to them for their earnest consideration, Jay makes a straightforward appeal to vanity (or perhaps just populism):

I am persuaded in my own mind that the people have always thought right on this subject, and that their universal and uniform attachment to the cause of the Union rests on great and weighty reasons, which I shall endeavor to develop and explain in some ensuing papers.

For those of you who learn best by listening here is audio of Federalist No. 2.

Books to Read

• The Federalist Papers at Amazon
• John Jay: Founding Father at Amazon

In all the other news of today (banks failing, people failing, stuff and things in general failing), we might have forgotten that this is the anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution:

During an intensive debate, the delegates devised a brilliant federal organization characterized by an intricate system of checks and balances. The convention was divided over the issue of state representation in Congress, as more-populated states sought proportional legislation, and smaller states wanted equal representation. The problem was resolved by the Connecticut Compromise, which proposed a bicameral legislature with proportional representation in the lower house (House of Representatives) and equal representation of the states in the upper house (Senate).

On September 17, 1787, the Constitution was signed. As dictated by Article VII, the document would not become binding until it was ratified by nine of the 13 states. Beginning on December 7, five states–Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, and Connecticut–ratified it in quick succession. However, other states, especially Massachusetts, opposed the document, as it failed to reserve undelegated powers to the states and lacked constitutional protection of basic political rights, such as freedom of speech, religion, and the press. In February 1788, a compromise was reached under which Massachusetts and other states would agree to ratify the document with the assurance that amendments would be immediately proposed. The Constitution was thus narrowly ratified in Massachusetts, followed by Maryland and South Carolina. On June 21, 1788, New Hampshire became the ninth state to ratify the document, and it was subsequently agreed that government under the U.S. Constitution would begin on March 4, 1789.

I’m grateful that we have the constitution. Now, if we would just remember to abide by it.

Here’s part of a Q&A with Chief Justice Roberts and the Washington Post (written for kids):

How can a document that was written at a time when people traveled by horseback still be relevant?

The Constitution is relevant today because the Framers who wrote it were planning a government they hoped would last beyond their own time. They wanted to promote justice and preserve freedom for future generations — including yours! The Framers may not have thought about cars, DVDs or iPods, but they knew that every generation should be free and have a fair and just government.

The very first of what we know today as the Federalist Papers was written by Alexander Hamilton. The full text of this paper may be found online here at the Library of Congress. Simply stated, this first paper is an introduction to what might be called a serious of articles in which the authors do their best to assure the public that the US Constitution is a document worth the support of those people whom it was crafted to protect.

The official title of this missive is “General Introduction.”

From the very beginning, Hamilton understood that while “the inducements of philanthropy” would help some to see the benefit of what was being done, the result would be less than perfect:

This idea will add the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism, to heighten the solicitude which all considerate and good men must feel for the event. Happy will it be if our choice should be directed by a judicious estimate of our true interests, unperplexed and unbiased by considerations not connected with the public good. But this is a thing more ardently to be wished than seriously to be expected. The plan offered to our deliberations affects too many particular interests, innovates upon too many local institutions, not to involve in its discussion a variety of objects foreign to its merits, and of views, passions and prejudices little favorable to the discovery of truth.

Or, in modern terms, he might say that good thinking should prevail, but there are too many special interests and selfish goals in play for him to consider this (establishing the new Constitution) to be as pure a purpose as he might like.

He goes on to say that some people will support the Constitution because they see it benefiting them directly, but we should not discount them as having good motivations also. Somehow this does not sound far off from how many of us view current elections, does it?

Then he follows with a statement which only confirms that he might well find himself surprised today to know that we have, in some regards, learned so little:

For in politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution.

While he says “rarely,” I might say “never.” I wonder if he at all had The Prince in mind when he wrote those sentences.

After telling us that he understands the levels of passion to which such national discussion may rise, he makes a point which could apply today, 220 years after it was first written:

History will teach us . . .that of those men who have overturned the liberties of republics, the greatest number have begun their career by paying an obsequious court to the people; commencing demagogues, and ending tyrants.

Then, Hamilton shows his hand, telling the audience that he is frankly a partisan in favor of the new Constitution and he intends to lay out all of the facts, and let them speak for themselves. Shortly before closing this first paper, he provides his readers with a preview of what he purposes for future papers:

. . . to discuss the following interesting particulars:

THE UTILITY OF THE UNION TO YOUR POLITICAL PROSPERITY–THE INSUFFICIENCY OF THE PRESENT CONFEDERATION TO PRESERVE THAT UNION–THE NECESSITY OF A GOVERNMENT AT LEAST EQUALLY ENERGETIC WITH THE ONE PROPOSED, TO THE ATTAINMENT OF THIS OBJECT–THE CONFORMITY OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTION TO THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT–ITS ANALOGY TO YOUR OWN STATE CONSTITUTION and lastly, THE ADDITIONAL SECURITY WHICH ITS ADOPTION WILL AFFORD TO THE PRESERVATION OF THAT SPECIES OF GOVERNMENT, TO LIBERTY, AND TO PROPERTY.

We now have the lens of history which we can cast upon 1788 and following and see that Hamilton and his colleagues were successful in pressing their argument for the adoption of the Constitution by the several states. However, at the time, it would not have been without reason for Hamilton to wonder if he would be able to win out against many newly-minted Americans who did not view the future in quite the same manner as he did.

For those of you who learn best by listening here is audio of Federalist No. 1.

Books to Read

• The Federalist Papers at Amazon
• Alexander Hamilton at Amazon