A Funny Thing Happened On The Way To Federalism: Blogging The Federalist Papers, Introduction:

This week, Obama made his State of the Union speech, talking about how much he'd like to frack for oil under mortgage bankers or something.

(I didn't watch.)

This week there was also the 65,789th debate among the current crop of candidates for the Republican nomination, in which Newt Gingrich claimed that Mitt Romney was unfit for the presidency because the moderator wouldn't let the crowd cheer for the execution of a gay soldier, or something.

(I didn't watch.)

And also this week, the Supreme Court issued a decision in which it said that the Founding Fathers would have disapproved of attaching a GPS unit to the car of a wife of a suspected drug dealer, and that therefore such activity violated the Fourth Amendment. This was after the Supremes also held that the Founding Fathers would have liked gory novels but that gory video games would be patently unconstitutional. Or something like that.

(I didn't read either of those opinions.)

This all got me thinking, though: we are in the midst of a debate about what our government should be, what protections we should have, what the Constitution means, and how our country should work.

Technically, we've always been in that debate. Since the dawn of the Constitution, we've been discussing what the Constitution allows and what it should not allow and often times we've framed that in terms of what the Founding Fathers meant by what they put in there.

As though that should matter.

Why should we care what the Founding Fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution? Does what a bunch of dead guys felt about a government that treated a majority of the people under it as second-class citizens or property matter, anymore?

Yes, and no.

It matters, I suppose, because words have meaning and not words have meaning, by which I'm saying that what the framers of the Constitution wrote and what they did not write means something about what those words mean. Did they think that speech, religion, and the press were all equally important rights and therefore lump them into the First Amendment, rather than giving them one Amendment each? Why did they select certain words and not others? Why elaborate on powers the Congress or the Presidency would have in the Constitution, and is the list exhaustive, or illustrative?

Those are important considerations, to be sure.

Then again, it doesn't matter at all what they thought, for two reasons: first, we've amended the Constitution what, 17 times since the Bill of Rights was adopted? Not to mention passing statutes that change how constitutional procedures operate. So we've changed the meaning of the Constitution. It's stupid to ask why, for example, the Framers adopted the electoral college when we now directly elect Senators and have laws dictating who the Electors must vote for: we no longer adhere to the Framers' interpretation of the Electoral College. We've got our own interpretation of that.

Plus, the Constitution can be changed, so what the Framers wanted doesn't matter a whit if we want it: Want Video Games to be on par with Religion? Pass an Amendment that says:

Congrefs shall pafs no law respecting the Freedom To Shoot Fake Prostitutes In Ye Video Gamese.

And now the Constitution protects that.

Still, as the debate goes on, as I see people on Twitter commenting on how stupid the Electoral College is, as I see that there are people who will actually vote in as President a man who has as part of his platform arresting "activist" judges who disagree with him (any reasonable definition of "activist" judge would include the 5 who voted in the majority on Bush v. Gore, so Republicans don't know what they're really voting for there), I thought to myself that maybe it was time that I started helping clear things up, explaining what the Framers actually meant and comparing that to what's going on now and what people are proposing go on and by doing that, help explain to people why things work the way they do and why they shouldn't work any other way.

The problem is, I never read the Federalist Papers, despite being a political science major. I never read them or Common Sense or much of anything; I'm not sure what it was I learned in college, other than "don't rollerblade down hills in Shorewood without making sure there's not soft tar or you're going to need skin grafts," which, sure, THAT was very educational.

So I'll be reading the Federalist Papers for the first time, and blogging about them, and explaining them as best I can, in what might well be an ongoing series if I remember to do it.

And I'll begin with the Introduction, written by Publius, or Alexander Hamilton.

The text of the original paper is in red:

To the People of the State of New York:

AFTER an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government, you are called upon to deliberate on a new Constitution for the United States of America. The subject speaks its own importance; comprehending in its consequences nothing less than the existence of the UNION, the safety and welfare of the parts of which it is composed, the fate of an empire in many respects the most interesting in the world.

So, are you getting this? At the time the Constitution was being debated, there was a real fear that the "United" States would no longer be "United." The old government, the Articles of Confederation, with its weak, limited ...

... weak, limited...

...federal government was falling apart, and consider what that would have meant: Instead of 13 united states banding together to form one country, we'd have had up to 13 separate little countries in a balkanized eastern seaboard, all of them racing to settle and colonize the western regions.

Europe, in our lifetime, had to decide to tear down, a bit, the barriers that kept it being separate countries in order to compete economically.

With nothing less than the future of the entire country at stake, Hamilton went on:

It has been frequently remarked that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force. If there be any truth in the remark, the crisis at which we are arrived may with propriety be regarded as the era in which that decision is to be made; and a wrong election of the part we shall act may, in this view, deserve to be considered as the general misfortune of mankind.

So Hamilton then raised the stakes and challenged his readers: Not only our little country is at stake, he's saying, but the fortune of mankind, and his challenge is to decide not just the form of government, but whether our government can be one which arises by thoughtful deliberation, not "accident and force."

This past year, Congress repeatedly couldn't agree on debt ceiling legislation, and ultimately tried to force itself to act by nominating a superCongress which would pass legislation because the alternative was automatic, draconian cuts.

So what kind of government have we slid into?

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.

Okay, so bear with Publius here. Adding the inducements of philanthropy to those of patriotism needs to be read in context with the happy it will be sentence: What Hamilton is telling people is that the Constitution that was newly proposed and very controversial is important not just to narrow American self-interests, but to the public good: That continued his theme that what America was doing -- this idea, this Constitution -- was a service to the world.

"Yeah, sure, it'll be great for us," as I read it, "but really, we owe it to the world to adopt the 3/5 compromise and a Commerce Clause that someday will be used to try to force people to buy health insurance."

Only he put it better.

Among the most formidable of the obstacles which the new Constitution will have to encounter may readily be distinguished the obvious interest of a certain class of men in every State to resist all changes which may hazard a diminution of the power, emolument, and consequence of the offices they hold under the State establishments; and the perverted ambition of another class of men, who will either hope to aggrandize themselves by the confusions of their country, or will flatter themselves with fairer prospects of elevation from the subdivision of the empire into several partial confederacies than from its union under one government.

Or, to put it more bluntly: there's some guys who have a bunch of power at the state level, or who would profit from Balkanizing this continent, and they're going to place their own greed over the interests of the American people and humanity, so expect a big fight.

Greed and a thirst for power that can be used for one's own aggrandizement jeopardizing Constitutional elements? Good thing that never happened again in our history!

Oh, also: The Republicans have for some time been focusing on lower-level state offices in hopes of taking over state legislatures so they can redistrict to capture more seats in Congress, while at the same time urging people to be discontented with the electoral college so they can split up some "winner-take-all" states that traditionally have gone to Democrats by narrow margins, with these efforts funded by a handful of very rich men who then get elected representatives to do things like hold up funding for scientific research in hopes that federal money can be diverted to their own programs.

I don't know what made me think of that. It just popped into my head.

It is not, however, my design to dwell upon observations of this nature. I am well aware that it would be disingenuous to resolve indiscriminately the opposition of any set of men (merely because their situations might subject them to suspicion) into interested or ambitious views. Candor will oblige us to admit that even such men may be actuated by upright intentions; and it cannot be doubted that much of the opposition which has made its appearance, or may hereafter make its appearance, will spring from sources, blameless at least, if not respectable--the honest errors of minds led astray by preconceived jealousies and fears.

Recently, I took issue with some people on Twitter who were commending Rick Santorum for being "sincere" in his beliefs, and saying that Newt Gingrich was an intellectual because he was the smartest guy in the GOP race.

Sincerity of belief is no virtue when that belief is wrong, and opinions, even sincere ones, can be wrong, especially if founded on false facts. If I sincerely believe that you are an idiot because you disagree that the world is flat, I'm wrong and not to be commended for my sincerity. I may be blameless but I am not respectable.

So numerous indeed and so powerful are the causes which serve to give a false bias to the judgment, that we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to, would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy. And a further reason for caution, in this respect, might be drawn from the reflection that we are not always sure that those who advocate the truth are influenced by purer principles than their antagonists.

See? The lesson of people who believe other than we do is that we should make doubly sure we are right.

And also: just because someone advocates for the "right" position does not mean they are doing so for good and pure reasons. Insurance companies advocated for the individual mandate in ObamaCare before litigating against it. Why? Not because ObamaCare was, in their idea, a good move -- but because without the individual mandate, they would have had a much harder time making money hand over fist.

By the way, did you know that in 2011, three years into the Second Great Depression, health insurance companies were on their third straight year of record profits?

Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.

Let's talk about ambition and avarice, briefly. These days, people think "Why would someone want to be President?" It's described as a thankless job that earns "only" $400,000 per year and demands a lot of the person.

But consider: becoming president means that you'll be well-off, if not rich, after 4 or 8 years of working. And running for president often is itself a lucrative business move: what has Rick Santorum ever done since leaving the Senate? Other than make millions from (in part) sitting on the board of a hospital that allows unauthorized exorcisms as autism treatment and at which patients have been raped and murdered?

If a person is already rich, which many take as a disqualification for public office, avarice at least can be removed from the list of motivating factors. But it would be worthwhile to ask people why do you want to be President, and demand not bland platitudes, but real answers.

Were there not even these inducements to moderation, nothing could be more ill-judged than that intolerant spirit which has, at all times, characterized political parties. 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.

Here's something you rarely hear from Republicans, who adore the Founding Fathers in all other respects: The Founders almost universally abhorred political parties. So when Reagan says above all, speak no ill of fellow Republicans, he is elevating to the status of virtue the love of party, which the Founding Fathers would have found morally repugnant.

A true strict constructionist would never join a party, and would remain suspicious of anyone who does.

And yet, however just these sentiments will be allowed to be, we have already sufficient indications that it will happen in this as in all former cases of great national discussion. A torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.

Good thing that never happened again in America, too.

To judge from the conduct of the opposite parties, we shall be led to conclude that they will mutually hope to evince the justness of their opinions, and to increase the number of their converts by the loudness of their declamations and the bitterness of their invectives. An enlightened zeal for the energy and efficiency of government will be stigmatized as the offspring of a temper fond of despotic power and hostile to the principles of liberty.

Wait, what? Did Hamilton just presage calling people "socialist"? He DID. Back in the 18th century, Alexander Hamilton correctly guessed that a large number of people would paint people who think government can work as "fond of despotic power and hostile to ... liberty."

Alexander Hamilton wrote the Tea Party's operating manual.

An over-scrupulous jealousy of danger to the rights of the people, which is more commonly the fault of the head than of the heart, will be represented as mere pretense and artifice, the stale bait for popularity at the expense of the public good. It will be forgotten, on the one hand, that jealousy is the usual concomitant of love, and that the noble enthusiasm of liberty is apt to be infected with a spirit of narrow and illiberal distrust. On the other hand, it will be equally forgotten that the vigor of government is essential to the security of liberty;

Wait, what? A Founding Father... a Founding Father... thought we needed a powerful government to secure liberty?

Let me see if I've got this straight... thinking... thinking...Got it:

Alexander Hamilton was a socialist!

I mean, besides the fact that he advocated for the national bank and liked free trade and all that. SOCIALIST!

that, in the contemplation of a sound and well-informed judgment, their interest can never be separated; and that a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of the people than under the forbidden appearance of zeal for the firmness and efficiency of government.

Ha! Take that, Tea Party: "a dangerous ambition more often lurks behind the specious mask of zeal for the rights of people."

Why would Hamilton think that people who wanted a restrained, weak government were more dangerous than people who advocated for a more efficient federal power? Perhaps because regardless of where our rights come from, they can only be protected by an efficient government.

Perhaps.

And if the government isn't so great at its job it becomes easier to, I don't know, set up a system whereby you give billions of dollars of loans to people on "stated income" and then secure those loans with liens on real estate and then securitize the whole thing in a massive game of hot potato, only to nearly destroy the entire Western Hemisphere's economic system before demanding that the federal government then hand you money to keep your business afloat long enough to process fraudulent foreclosures on those homeowners, so you get the money and the land.

Perhaps.

History will teach us that the former has been found a much more certain road to the introduction of despotism than the latter, and 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.

People who begin as demagogues and end as tyrants?





In the course of the preceding observations, I have had an eye, my fellow-citizens, to putting you upon your guard against all attempts, from whatever quarter, to influence your decision in a matter of the utmost moment to your welfare, by any impressions other than those which may result from the evidence of truth. You will, no doubt, at the same time, have collected from the general scope of them, that they proceed from a source not unfriendly to the new Constitution. Yes, my countrymen, I own to you that, after having given it an attentive consideration, I am clearly of opinion it is your interest to adopt it. I am convinced that this is the safest course for your liberty, your dignity, and your happiness. I affect not reserves which I do not feel. I will not amuse you with an appearance of deliberation when I have decided. I frankly acknowledge to you my convictions, and I will freely lay before you the reasons on which they are founded. The consciousness of good intentions disdains ambiguity. I shall not, however, multiply professions on this head. My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast. My arguments will be open to all, and may be judged of by all. They shall at least be offered in a spirit which will not disgrace the cause of truth.

I propose, in a series of 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.

In the progress of this discussion I shall endeavor to give a satisfactory answer to all the objections which shall have made their appearance, that may seem to have any claim to your attention.

It may perhaps be thought superfluous to offer arguments to prove the utility of the UNION, a point, no doubt, deeply engraved on the hearts of the great body of the people in every State, and one, which it may be imagined, has no adversaries. But the fact is, that we already hear it whispered in the private circles of those who oppose the new Constitution, that the thirteen States are of too great extent for any general system, and that we must of necessity resort to separate confederacies of distinct portions of the whole.1 This doctrine will, in all probability, be gradually propagated, till it has votaries enough to countenance an open avowal of it.

Does anyone still believe in "states rights?" They do?

Weirdos.

Also: Anti-Founders.

For nothing can be more evident, to those who are able to take an enlarged view of the subject, than the alternative of an adoption of the new Constitution or a dismemberment of the Union. It will therefore be of use to begin by examining the advantages of that Union, the certain evils, and the probable dangers, to which every State will be exposed from its dissolution. This shall accordingly constitute the subject of my next address.

PUBLIUS.

Hamilton had a footnote, which I love. Footnotes are my favorite things, next to semicolons. On the issue of whether the 13 states were too different to be bound to a single government, he footnoted:

1. The same idea, tracing the arguments to their consequences, is held out in several of the late publications against the new Constitution.

It's important to remember that "The same idea" lost.