Puritan or Pilgrim

My friend Ashok and I were at Starbucks today and along the way I mentioned to him my research I’ve begun on the Puritans. It lead to a question that he had for me about the difference between the Pilgrims and the Puritans. With it having been Thanksgiving a few weeks ago I think it is an important topic to discuss.

The Protestant Reformation had already hit England in many ways before Henry VIII formally separated from Rome. The Scottish were exposed to the Calvinist brand of Protestantism and formed the Presbyterian Church. Their beliefs and ideology spread down into mainland England in the aftermath of the English Reformation. There were pockets in England who believed that the King had not gone far enough in reforming the Church of England. Among those who believed this were a group that I will generally call English Calvinists. This group was made up of the Puritans and the Pilgrims; religious cousins if you will. Both groups subscribed to Calvin’s particular brand of Christianity and believed that the Church of England needed to be purified. The distinguishing difference between the two was what this purification meant. The Pilgrims quickly became a more radical brand of English Calvinism going so far as to flee England for the Netherlands.

The Pilgrims believed that the Church of England was beyond salvation and utterly corrupt. As an extension, because the King of England was also now the head of the Church of England the state itself was corrupt. The Puritans on the other hand held out faith that King Henry VIII, Queen Elizabeth and King James would all do their part to purify the Church more and more, eventually riding it of the Catholic influences. Puritans became integral members of their respective towns, including becoming political leaders. Puritans would even infiltrate the King’s own privy council with men like John Locke. And while members of the Puritan church did eventually leave England for the New World, their actions once they arrived separate them from the Pilgrims.

The Pilgrims received a charter to establish a colony in Northern Virginia along the Hudson Bay and immediately set sail for the New World along with others who they called “Strangers” on board the Mayflower. When they arrived the men on board decided to write a compact for the governance of their new colony. This compact was the first such document written by the people in the new world and while it was not a constitution, it was very much a proto-constitution. It also is significant because it did not come from the King nor Parliament and the men who wrote it did not have legal authority to do so. However, the Pilgrims had taken it upon themselves to govern their colony as they saw fit rather than depending upon the corrupt government in London to do so.

Unlike the Pilgrims, the Puritans did not write their own compact when they arrived in the New World in the 1630′s. Instead they had their own charter. And while they did have a government, it was not in the same manner we would recognize as in New Plymouth. Eventually such compacts would be written by Puritans in Connecticut, though. In all the Puritans were seeking religious separation but not necessarily legal or political separation from the state. Their charter was revoked in the 1690′s and the New Plymouth colony and the  Massachusetts Bay colony were merged.

Published in: on December 2, 2011 at 00:48  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Monroe Doctrine

As a principle in which the rights and interests of the United States are involved, that the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European powers.

                                  -President James Monroe‘s 7th Annual Address to Congress 12.2.1823

When the United Colonies, in General Congress Assembled, declared their independence from Great Britain there were three European powers occupying North America: Spain, Russia and England. By the time the 1790′s rolled around, France was reoccupying the Louisiana Territory; a tract of land France had ceded to Spain following the end of the French & Indian War. For her own part, the new United States of America had little means of removing these powerful Europeans from American soil. It had been with the assistance of the French, and a lesser degree the Spanish, that the US had even won her independence. However, the problem of French occupation quickly found a peaceful resolution when Thomas Jefferson authorized the purchase of the Louisiana Territory. Within a decade of that purchase, the United States found herself in a second war with the English; the War of 1812. While this war is still considered by many to be a status quo war, it demonstrated the emergence of American military capabilities.

It was with this that 11 years after the Americans stood toe to toe with the English that President James Monroe promulgated his Monroe Doctrine. This doctrine warned the powers of Europe to never again attempt to colonize the Americas. Yet, our Monroe Doctrine did not take into consideration that in 1823 the United States did not have the military capabilities to enforce this doctrine. Therefore, the Monroe Doctrine relied heavily upon our good relations with the English. American military power was not at the point of enforcing such a doctrine until after the Spanish-American War, which was explicitly fought to enforce the Monroe Doctrine.

The Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine added the next evolution in American military involvement in the world. In addition to preventing European powers from occupying the Americas, the Roosevelt Corollary promised American intervention in Latin Countries unable to pay international debts. It also declared the right of the United States to intervene and stabilize any Latin American Country. This doctrine helped create a partnership between the United States and her Latin American counterparts to the South. It was not, however, the last evolution of the Monroe Doctrine. Rather, the Monroe Doctrine would undergo another change in the late 1940′s.

With World War II officially over, the post-World War world began to take shape. In a matter of years it was apparent that the United States and Soviet Union were settling in for a long, cold War. President Harry S. Truman, hoping to halt the spread of Communism, issued his own corollary to the Monroe Doctrine: The Truman Doctrine. This doctrine stated that the United States would send troops to anywhere in the world in order to prevent the spread of communism. It was under this doctrine that the United States became involved in the Korean War and Vietnam War. As an extension to the Truman Doctrine was the Marshall Plan. The Marshall Plan was the economic side of the Truman Doctrine. The plan called for the United States to economically prop up Western Europe to help confront the Soviet Union.

Finally, the last of the evolutions of the Monroe Doctrine came in the wake of 9/11. The Bush Doctrine called upon the United States to meet the spread Terrorism anywhere in the world it may find safe harbor. This doctrine has resulted in the United States intervening in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq.

The Monroe Doctrine was devised to simply assert that the United States would not tolerate European intervention in the Americas. Since it was first put forth by James Monroe, the Monroe Doctrine has been transformed to assert American right to intervene in the governments of Latin America, under the threat of Communism, or supporters of Terrorism.

Published in: on April 11, 2011 at 12:49  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Libya

On Saturday, March 19th the United States, Britain and France launched joint strikes on Libya. These strikes come weeks after rebel forces began a revolution in that country against long time dictator Muammar Gaddafi. However, in the aftermath of the allied bombings there have been many who have begun questioning the Constitutionality of the attacks. For an American stand point, the Constitutionality of these attacks rests on three principles: President as Commander-in-Chief, Congressional authority to declare war, and the War Powers Act.

According to Article II of the Constitution, one of the duties of the President of the United States is to be Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy. As such, at various points in American History, the President of the United States has utilized the armed forces in strategic manuevers. Among these instances include the Quasi War, the Civil War and the Spanish-American War. During the late 19th century, the French military harassed American ships attempting to trade with England. Likewise, the English harassed American ships attempting to trade with France. As John Adams entered the Presidency, he maintained President Washington’s position of neutrality. However, as a supporter of a strong Navy, Adams did position naval vessels in the Atlantic to project American interests. The result was what historians now call the Quasi War.

Beginning in 1861, President Abraham Lincoln ordered the United States Base at Ft. Sumter to be resupplied. This attempt sparked a war with the newly created Confederate States of America. Without authorization from Congress, President Lincoln ordered his military to mobilize to put down the Southern Rebellion. While his actions were later legitimized with ex post facto laws, he understood the Presidential power of Commander-in-Chief as allowing  him to take military action against the South.

President William McKinley mobilized the United States Navy in Cuba prior to the outbreak of the Spanish-American War. While he was pressured by men like Theodore Roosevelt and the Yellow Press, McKinley utilized his power as Commander-in-Chief to position military troops to invade Cuba. While Congress eventually did declare war when the Spanish attacked, it was under his authority as Commander-in-Chief that McKinley set the stage for America’s first major international war.

Under Article 1 of the United States Constitution, Congress has the sole authority to declare war. The United States Congress has only declared war a handful of times: War of 1812, Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, World War I, and World War II. As a result, it is evident that the Constitution does not require a Congressional Declaration of War in order for the Military to participate in military action.

Further to prove this point is the War Powers Act passed by Congress in 1975. This act grants the President the authority to utilize the military for up to 60 days with certain reporting requirements. It was a result of Korea and Vietnam that Congress granted this act for the President so to legitimize actions that the President had been taking since the Quasi War.

The question of whether or not it was Constitutional for the United States to attack Libya is clear. The President has used his power as Commander-in-Chief outside Congress’ power to declare war. And since 1975 the War Powers Act has made legal what was previous ambiguous.

Published in: on March 21, 2011 at 10:54  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

My way, or the highway.

I want to take a moment and discuss something that has been bothering me concerning contemporary politics. As many of you know I will sometimes do this and today just seems like one of those days.

Recently the state of Arizona passed a law giving police in their state authority to challenge anyone they believe is not a legal resident of the United States. The reaction from many states and cities has been negative towards Arizona. Cities such as San Diego have voted to boycott all business with the state over this law. Arizona residents in return have quickly pulled back on planned trips to the city; this has caused the city tourism to lose upwards of $10 Million. Other cities have voted to boycott, and in some cases the backlash out of Arizona has caused many  more to rethink their vote before ruining their our economy.

This brings up an interesting question that can be related back to a number of hot button issues currently in the political sphere. But back to Arizona for one second. The Federal government has a law currently on the books that does essentially what Arizona’s new law does; except the Federal Government ignores their law. A basic principle of politics found in the heart of the Declaration of Independence is, “that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Now the purpose of our government, the ends for which we established it in 1787, are clearly written into our Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

For many of Arizona’s residents the Federal government has failed to uphold its ends for insuring domestic tranquility and providing for the common defence. If liberals haven’t noticed lately there is a drug war going on in Mexico that spills into the border towns of the United States. Illegals are smuggling drugs into our nation helping to destroy our domestic tranquility. All the while our Federal Government is sitting back and passing legislation for something Americans have clearly shown we do not want. What else has Arizona, or any state, have to do besides take up what the Federal Government refuses.

Back to the point though, it appears that anytime Conservatives win the day on a hot button issue the only thing liberals can do is say that they are racists, sexists, homophobic rednecks. It appears that there is only one way when it comes to Liberals, their way. Conservatives aren’t innocent either, at least when they don’t like something they don’t automatically start calling people by slurs. When the State of California voted by popular referendum to ban homosexual marriage the liberal response was that Conservative nut jobs who hate people were behind it. In Massachusetts when they allowed for homosexual marriage, Conservatives argued that it was unnecessary and immoral. Conservatives take the old Christian saying of, “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Liberals just want to hate, even though they preach we should love everyone.

The President has even weighed in on this issue warning college graduates to watch out for false information as he sees it. This was the same President Obama that wanted people to spy on their neighbors who were preaching “falsly” about the health care bill. There is no room for debate, or for discussion in the Liberal way of thinking. It is only their way and if you don’t agree with it then you’ll be left for dead on the side of the road; but not before they humiliate,prejudice and libel you. Their idea of freedom of speech is not what the founders envisioned; the Founding notion was to allow for free, open and public political discourse. The belief you could libel, slander, or even blasphem was out of the question for the Founders. And yet Liberals do just that and when Conservatives push back they cry foul. They are offended by the idea that anyone could possibly hold an opposing point of view. Conservatives can be just as bad, but at least they allow for those views to be voiced.

Published in: on May 17, 2010 at 10:51  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

How the Constitution provides for energy and stability while maintaining liberty and republicanism through separation of powers.

Energy and stability have been the greatest questions in government since the ancients first developed the polis. Prior to the United States, no country made better efforts to perfect the art of separation of powers than England has made. Publius describes in Federalist 37 the need for stability and energy in the new government, while at the same time protecting the liberty of the people and the republican way of life. The Constitution of 1787 achieves these aims through a separation of powers between the three branches of the Federal government and the specific make up of the departments.

In order to understand Publius’ argument better, it would be best to take his argument in Federalist 37 first, followed by his discussion of the relationship between the three branches of government. Lastly I will view his discussion of the specific make up of the various branches of the United States Government.

Publius argues for the necessity of a separation of powers in the new government in order to provide for the necessary stability and energy in government while protecting liberty and republicanism. In order to do this he argues that there most be present a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive and Judicial branches of government. Furthermore, there must be a separation of powers between that of the States and Federal governments. Publius says, “Among the difficulties encountered by the convention, a very important one must have lain in combining the requisite stability and energy in government with the inviolable attention due to liberty and to republican form.”[1] The first attempt at creating a republic with the Articles of Confederation failed due to a lack of energy and stability within the government, thus it was pertinent to create in the new government fixes for these problems. Publius then goes on to explain:

The genius of republican liberty seems to demand on one side not only that all power should be derived from the people, but that those intrusted with it should be kept in dependence on the people by a short duration of their appointments; and that even this short period the trust should be placed not in a few, but in a number of hands.[2]

This is the genius of the new Constitution according to Publius, it has attained the short periods of appointment and dividing the government among many hands. In order that the liberty of the people is not offended, they must remain the source of power for the government.

Yet this is not enough, in order to understand how this present in the Constitution Publius explains further in papers 47-51. In the first of these papers, Publius addresses the allegations by opponents of the proposed plan that it lacks a separation of powers. Publius explains Montesquieu’s argument for the separation of powers by saying, “he did not mean that these departments ought to have no partial agency in, or no control over, the acts of each other.”[3] The magistrate must have the authority to not only enforce the laws passed by the legislative, but also to veto laws that violate the Constitution, and the judicial cannot create laws but can advise the legislative.[4] Publius then goes on to demonstrate that the various Constitutions of the states provide for more blending of the branches of government than the proposed Federal Constitution.

And then in Federalist 48 Publius describes how the Federal Constitution provides a defense through a moderate blend of the branches of government. At first he argues:

But in a representative republic where the executive magistracy is carefully limited, both in the extent and duration of his power, and where the legislative power is exercised by an assembly, which is inspired by a supposed influence over the people with an intrepid confidence in its own strength; which is sufficiently numerous to feel all the passions which actuate a multitude, yet not so numerous as to be incapable of pursuing the objects of its passions by means which reason prescribes; it is against the enterprising ambition of this department that the people out to indulge all their jealousy and exhaust all their precautions.[5]

So in order to prevent the encroachments of the legislative on the rights and liberties of the people, the executive and judicial branches must have authority to reign in the power of the legislative. The legislative is also apt to encroach on the power and freedom of the other branches through pay[6], and thus they must be limited on how they are able to alter the pay of these other branches. Publius provides examples of Virginia and Pennsylvania where the powers of the legislative were not protected against and the judicial and executive branches were usurped by the authority of the legislative. Having demonstrated the dangers of allowing unbridled power to exist within the legislative branch, Publius goes on to explain how it might be possible to prevent the encroachments of one branch on the power of another.

Federalist 49 provides for this explanation and Publius defines that the people alone are the source of charter for the Constitution and its parts. Thus the people alone should be consulted when the powers of the Constitution are in question as to demolishing them, or creating a new power.[7] Appeals to the people are necessary in order to prevent the encroachments of power by the various branches. Yet frequent appeals are insufficient in protecting the freedom of the society. Not only this but it is impossible, as Publius explains, “The members of the executive and judiciary departments are few in number, and can be personally known to a small part only of the people.”[8] Yet the legislative is many in number and can be known by a larger number of the people.[9] Thus the legislative would be most likely to take advantage of the appeals from the people and thus encroach on the various powers of the other branches. As such frequent appeals of the people could turn out to be bad for the stability, energy and liberty of the society as the legislative might take their appeals as a mandate. And so how this can be moderated is discussed next by Publius.

Publius states at the beginning of Federalist 50, “It may be contended, perhaps, that instead of occasional appeals to the people, which are liable to the objections urged against them, periodical appeals are proper…”[10] In order to achieve this, Publius argues that a fixed period for appeals to the people could be detrimental to the purpose of those appeals. If they are too close together Publius argues, “the measures to be reviewed and rectified will have been of recent date, and will be connected with all the circumstances which tend to vitiate and pervert the result of occasional revisions.”[11] Yet by the same token, if they are too far apart then the people are likely not to know each other and to be unaware of the circumstances which lead to the need for revisions. [12] To demonstrate his point, Publius once again looks to the states for an example. He tells of how in Pennsylvania there had been a meeting of censorial council to remedy the defects of their Constitution. He elucidates however that the members of the council were prominent citizens who were members of the parties within the state. Secondly, some of the members of the council had served in the legislative and executive departments. Third, the proceedings of the council were disrupted by the factionalism of the members themselves. And finally, the council either did not understand the limits placed on the legislative and executive, or the legislative completely ignored the changes made by the censorial council.[13] Publius demonstrates properly the difficulty of having occasional or frequent appeals to the people for the remedy of the defects for the Constitution.

And so Publius goes on to discuss in Federalist 51 the structure of the government in regards to checks and balances. He states, “it is evident that each department should have a will of its own; and consequently should be so constituted that the members of each should have as little agency as possible in the appointment of the members of the others.”[14] The importance of each department having its own will is demonstrated in the preceding papers, where Publius demonstrates the likely chances of an encroachment and usurpation by the legislative. In order to achieve this, Publius also states, “It is equally evident that the members of each department should be as little dependent as possible on those of the others for the emoluments annexed to their offices.”[15] Thus the departments must have a will of their own and should not be made dependent on the other departments for their pay. But at the same time Publius argues that the members of the various departments must be given the constitutional means and personal motives to protect against the encroachment of another department on their own.[16] Publius argues, “The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It must be a reflection on human nature that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government.”[17] However, Publius also reminds the reader that the legislative must be predominant in republics. In order to properly control the legislative against usurpation Publius argues:

The remedy for this inconveniency is to divide the legislature into different branches; and to render them, by different modes of election and different principles of action, as little connected with each other as the nature of their common functions and their common dependence on the society will admit.[18]

By dividing the authority of the legislative, a republic is capable of controlling the growth of power and influence of the legislative. Yet this is not enough, as Publius points out it is important in a “compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments.”[19] By dividing the legislative, you weaken its ability to encroach on the authority of the other branches. But by dividing the government into two different governments and allotting them different powers a republic can prevent the creation of a tyranny.

However, one question still remains and that is how the different bodies of government are erected for the purposes presented in Federalist 51. The various branches must be provided with different powers so that no one branch can consolidate that power. The branches must also have varying degrees of separation from the people, so that the passions of the majority cannot rule in society. In regards to the legislative branch, the branch should be split into two distinct houses with one having more of a dependence and response to the people than the other. As the legislative branch is closest to the people, and thus lays one of legislative threats, it is proper that it be divided so as to limit this closeness with the people. The first branch of the legislative Publius discusses is thus the House of Representatives, which is designed to be the department most dependent on the people. Publius describes, “As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people.”[20] The House of Representatives will only share in the legislative authority of the government and will be able to respond to the passions of the people while the upper house will be able to filter out the reason. This great authority constitutes a need for a shorter duration of power as Publius states, “It is a received and well-founded maxim that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the great out to be its duration…”[21] Further, the House of Representatives will be watched not only by the people through its direct dependence on them, but also by the collateral branch of the legislative.

Next Publius discusses the Senate, which serves as the connection between the States and the Federal government as directed by the un-amended Constitution.  On this Publius states, “It is recommended by the double advantage of favoring a select appointment, and of giving to the State governments such an agency in the formation of the federal government as must secure the authority of the former, and may form a convenient link between the two systems.”[22] So that the States retain some type of authority under the new Constitution, it is important that they be given the authority to appoint the members of the Senate. The advantage of this stands that now law cannot be passed without the consent of both the people and the States.[23] And it also serves as a way to prevent members of the legislative body from forgetting their constituents by requiring the laws to be passed by both distinct bodies. Publius goes on to say:

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by the factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.[24]

The Senate’s mutability is important as well, so that the members restrain their passions and tyrannical nature. By having the Senate elected by the States, the States have their own elections for government offices. By changing the government representatives in the States, the Senate will be apt to change and thus opinions will be changed. Their length of office will allow the Senate the opportunity to learn the laws of the nation as well, and so that they are not constantly changing and that the opinions and measures remain some what consistent.[25] The importance of the Senate within the make up of checks and balances and separation of powers is clear. It serves as a check on the passions of the people, while balancing the representation of the States within the Federal government. Further the two branches of the legislative provide for stability and energy in the new government by removing the passions of the people and allowing for competition within the branches.

Thus next Publius discusses the executive branch, by far the most controversial of the day and most in need of defense by Publius. Publius discusses the mode of electing the President in Federalist 68. As with the legislative, the mode of electing the President must have a way of preventing the passions of the majority from ruling. Thus the Electoral College was devised as a way of preventing the encroachments of the people’s passions from entering into the election of the President. Publius describes, “It was equally desirable that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation.”[26] By doing this the Electoral College is made up of a small number of individuals so that deliberation is permitted in the election of the new President. Publius says, “This process of election affords a moral certainty that the office of the President will seldom fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.”[27] As for the proper place of the executive in the stability and energy of government, he is of the most importance. As Publius says, “A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever it may be in theory must be, in practice, a bad government.”[28] The executive must be strong and energetic in order to properly execute the laws he is charged to enforce. Publius calls “united; duration; an adequate provision for its support; and competent powers”[29] to be what constitutes an energetic executive. Energy is found in unity as in a single person the powers of the executive can be carried out quickly without delay. If the executive power were divided among more than one person, it would be subject to deliberation which will prevent an energetic executive. [30] Likewise, the President’s tenure of office is important for his energy. The duration of office is also an important element in the stability of the executive. If he stays too long, then he is apt to be too firm and possibly encroach on the powers of the legislative. Yet if he is tenure is too short then he is apt to fall prey to the legislative.[31] Shortness in the tenure of office is also likely to prevent the interest of the executive from performing his duties. This is also the argument used by Publius in Federalist 72 in regards to the reelection of an executive; by allowing him to run for reelection, he will watch how he acts in office so that the people look upon him favorably.[32] These are the aspects which allow for an energetic and stable executive, without which the government as a whole would lack stability and energy.

Lastly, Publius discusses the importance of the Judiciary in the make up of the new Constitution. Publius calls the Federal judiciary, “the best expedient which can be devised in any government to secure a steady, upright, and impartial administration of the laws.”[33] The purpose of the Federal judiciary he proposes is to prevent “the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body.”[34] Publius counters the fears of judicial usurpation by asserting that the Federal judiciary will be the weakest of all the branches as it lacks power over the purse and sword. Publius further argues:

Whoever attentively considers the different departments of power must perceive that, in a government in which they are separated from each other, the judiciary, from the nature of its functions, will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution; because it will be least in a capacity to annoy or injure them.[35]

The Judicial branch will have no authority over the purse or over the sword, but instead only over judgment.[36] It will thus be able to prevent against legislative and executive encroachments by striking down laws which are contrary to the Constitution and the laws and treaties of the United States. The separation of the judicial from the legislative is also important so as to allow the judges to exercise their judgment without fear of reprisal by the legislative branch. Thus, the salaries of the judges cannot be lowered so as not to influence their opinions.[37] Their tenure of office also allows for freedom of judgment in judicial matters. Their appointment is for during good behavior, which prevents their judgment from being dependent on reelection, which may have a negative effect on their opinions. Thus through the judicial department is called upon to be safeguard against the encroachments of the representative and executive bodies. It will further only have the power of judgment, not the power of the purse or the sword. And it will further lack dependence on the legislative branch because their salaries cannot be lowered and their tenure of office is during good behavior, not apt to reelection.

The Federalist lays out a discussion of how energy and stability will be present in the new Constitution without violating the principles of republican government and the liberties of the people. As such, the basic necessity to ensure this requires a separation of powers. Publius describes how the various departments of the new government participate and uphold the principles of the separation of powers. He further demonstrates how the people and States partake in the controlling of the new government by their participation in the election of the houses of the legislative. Publius properly upholds his argument in Federalist 37 in his discussion of the following papers.

[1]Federalist 37, in Alexander Hamilton et al., The Federalist Papers, ed. Clinton Rossiter, introduction and notes by Charles R. Kesler (New York: New American Library, Mentor, 1999), 194.

[2] Federalist 37, 195

[3] Federalist 47, 270

[4] Federalist 47, 271

[5] Federalist 48, 277

[6] “as the legislative department alone has access to the pockets of the people…”Federalist 48, 278

[7] “As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power…” Federalist 49, 281-282

[8] Federalist 49, 284

[9] “The members of the legislative department…” Federalist 49, 284

[10] Federalist 50, 285

[11] Federalist 50, 286

[12] “If the periods be distant from each other…” Federalist 50, 286

[13] “Pennsylvania in 1783 and 1784, was, as we have seen….” Federalist 50, 286

[14] Federalist 51, 289

[15] Federalist 51, 289

[16] “But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several…” Federalist 51, 289

[17] Federalist 51, 290

[18] Federalist 51, 290

[19] Federalist 51, 291

[20] Federalist 52, 295

[21] Federalist 52, 298

[22] Federalist 62, 345

[23] Federalist 62, 346

[24] Federalist 62, 347

[25] “The mutability in the public councils…” Federalist 62, 348

[26] Federalist 68, 380

[27] Federalist 68, 382

[28] Federalist 70, 391

[29] Federalist 70, 392

[30] Federalist 70, 392

[31] “Duration in office has been mentioned…”Federalist 71, 399

[32] “The first is necessary to give the officer himself….” Federalist 72, 404

[33] Federalist 78, 433

[34] Federalist 78, 433

[35] Federalist 78, 433

[36] Federalist 78, 433

[37] Federalist 79, 441

Published in: on December 6, 2009 at 19:43  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Voting

With a historic election coming to us in November, it is important that every American who is eligible to vote in the Presidential, Congressional, and State wide elections to do so. A nation founded upon the principle that the power of government is granted by the people needs a people who are willing to exercise not only their right but their duty in controlling that government through voting. The only effective government is that which is dependent solely on the people for it’s power. But the people themselves, who are the fountain of that power, must be willing and able to concern themselves with the affairs of government in order to keep that government in check. The Ancient Greeks understood this problem and young men were expected to engage in the political sphere in order to maintain their governments. The Romans initially understood this concept, but by the time of the late Republic the enfranchised citizens of Rome cared less about their government and more about their private self interests. This ultimately lead to the destruction of the Roman Republic and the rise of a violent, despotic regime ruled by the Caesars. The Founders of our nation, influenced by centuries of Modern philosophic writings, understood this important distinction. They understood that in order for a regime to survive based on the people, the people must be willing to maintain the government.

Initially in America voting rights were limited to white males who were at least 21 years of age and owned property. Today we are aghast to find out that the Founders, these champions of liberty, sought to limit elections to white property owning men. Their justification was that only those who owned property, which was limited to white males, could possibly need to concern themselves with the affairs of Government. Furthermore, property owners, unlike the poor, are not subject to be influenced by their employers to vote a specific way. The Founders believed that voting should be a private matter, not subject to the whims of employers and city bosses. John Adams argues in his letter to James Sullivan, “Such is the frailty of the human heart, that very few men, who have no property, have any judgment of their own. They talk and vote as they are directed by some man of property, who has attached their minds to his interest…” The same holds for women and children, they are dependent upon the man of the house who can influence their voting decisions. The fixing of voting requirements to white males who are 21 and own property according to Adams was, “Society can be governed only by general rules. Government cannot accommodate itself to every particular case, as it happens, nor to the circumstances of particular persons. It must establish general, comprehensive regulations for cases and persons. The only question is, which general rule, will accommodate most cases and most persons.”

However, as we all know the Government changed voting laws with the passage of the 15th Amendment, which allows the right to vote to all males no matter their color. As we all know the right to vote was limited among blacks by Jim Crow laws after Reconstruction was ended by requiring individuals to be literate, and own property though they were forbidden from owning property or going to school in some cases. These laws would eventually change and today all men, of any color has been granted the right to vote. The Constitution was further amended by the 19th Amendment which made it unconstitutional for government to limit the right to vote based on sex. The 24th Amendment of the Constitution forbides poll or voting taxes, essentially doing away with property requirements. The 26th Amendment, passed in 1971, was the last of the Constitutional Amendments to change the understanding of voting rights when it lowered the voting age to 18. Adams once again indicates why the voting age was initially set at 21 by most States, ” The reason is, you must fix upon some period in life, when the understanding and will of men in general is fit to be trusted by the public.” In a recent Death Penalty case before the Supreme Court, the High Court defined the age of reason and therefore the age at which one is able to be punished with Death for a crime as 18 years old.

All individuals who are at least 18 years of age must take advantage of their right to vote, granted to them by the Constitution itself. But whether or not voting is merely a right or a requirement of citizens is something more to look at. The basis of government is, as has been said before, the people and it is only through the people that government can be limited through periodic elections. Therefore, the “right” to vote is not merely a right as freedom of religion, or the ability to own guns. Voting is a requirement of citizenship, to be a good citizen one must engage in the public affairs via voting. It is the duty as Americans to educate oneself about public matters in order to make the best, most well informed decision possible in the voting booth in November. Adams states, “For government is a frame, a scheme, a system, a combination of powers, for a certain end, viz the good of the whole community. The public good, the salus populi is the professed end of all government, the most despotic, as well as the most free.” The only way that the people can ensure and maintain the public good is to prevent corrupt and unjust rulers from holding office. The only way in which the frame, scheme, system, and combination of powers aimed at the good of the community can be achieved is if the people, the foremen of the Great American Experience, keep a solid eye on their government so that it does not grow cancerous and destroy the people.

The exercise of the body is the only way in which the body can remain healthy. Likewise, the exercise of rights is the only way those rights remain intact and useful to a people. The only way to maintain the health of a nation is if the people exercise their rights and duties regularly. Voting is as a physician for the regime, curing it of its infections so as to not kill itself. Only through exercising their right to vote can the people of a good regime keep that regime good and healthy.

Published in: on September 4, 2008 at 20:00  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Views on our nations forthcoming election.

Previously I have posted my comments on the forthcoming presidential election in the U.S. In my first post I made a case that America cannot afford to have any of the individuals who declared their candidacy for President. After sometime and many of the candidates dropped from the race I formally presented my argument for why I disagree with John McCain on many of his platforms. I must say this now that despite my ill feelings towards Senator McCain’s beliefs on key issues, I will nonetheless through my support behind him. However, I feel the need to lay out my beliefs on the election and on the current status of American politics.

As anyone can see I am a conservative, whether or not I am a Republican is up for debate. What does it mean to be a conservative exactly? In the proper sense to be a conservative is the conserve the status quo but in another sense (often times viewed as dangerous) to be conservative means to return to a previous time: I belong to the latter. To neglect this side of the conservative movement is to give up on hope. In today’s world we are called upon to accept how things are and just get use to it rather than wish for something better. This notion is what has caused a decay in the American political system for some time now. We have lost track of what this nation was founded to do. The issues that will be important for the election, as they have been for some time and will continue to be, are vital to America. Among these issues are Immigration, Abortion, Death Penalty, Homosexual Marriage and the like. It was commented on my blog that I should just accept abortion and move on; morally I cannot do that and as an American citizen I would fail to live up to my obligations just to accept things.

Politics is aimed at the good, as defined by Aristotle this good is happiness. Coupled with Politics is the Noble, or virtue. In America we still have some notion of what the good is but have completely forgotten about what politics and virtue are. Let me make this abundantly clear: there is such a thing as right and wrong and they are not subjective to the individual person. Our citizens in general have lost sight of this and thus we have our present circumstances. In the Democratic party we have a potential nominee who stands for nothing more than hope and change, so did Adolf Hitler. In the Republic party we have a presumptive nominee who appears to be a unifying force in the country as he has both liberal and conservative stances. Whether or not either of these is good for our country should be clear to us all, they are not. The danger of electing either Barack Obama or John McCain is not that they are bad men, but that their beliefs in the hands of the people will bring about the destruction of liberty. Morality is key to the preservation to the body politic; Locke argues that the purpose of the civil society is to enforce and uphold the Law of Nature. I do not see a person in politics today who wants to do this.

In today’s America the election of the President of the United States is the most important decision an American can or will ever make. The President yields far more power than he has in the history of the office. Can the President have an effect on issues? Of course he can there is something called Presidential veto. Within the next President’s term it is possible that Justice Stevens will be retiring: Justice Stevens is one of the most liberal members of the High Court and with Justice Kennedy siding mostly with the Conservatives the appointment of a strong conservative Justice would be a positive thing. Like the President, the Supreme Court has more authority now than it did ever in it’s history. Thus the President, on an issue like abortion, could choose to veto a law that extends abortion rights or appoint a conservative Justice to the bench who will help overturn abortion laws as they are brought to the court. When it comes to issues of immorality such as Abortion and Homosexuality I think it is clear from the past two elections that the American people are vastly against both. President Bush is ardently against both issues and the fact that he won the popular vote in 2004, and received the largest number of votes in history is key. The President does have sway over legislation in America even if he doesn’t have the authority to create law: the President as all branches of our government should do everything in their power to uphold the Law of Nature.

The fundamental right we possess as American citizens, nay as a citizen in general is to voice our opinion and gain support for our ideology. John Adams defines an aristocrat as a man who has two votes, his own and someone else’s. The first amendment, via the Free Speech clause, is a wholly political amendment calling on the citizens (those who are capable of ruling and being ruled according to Aristotle) to voice their opinions about political matters. With the exception of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses the entire amendment deals with how the citizens are to conduct their political affairs. By submitting to the way things are simply because no one else wants to agree with you is cowardliness behavior. If I can get two people to agree that my way of thinking is right and that they will vote as I would vote then I have succeeded in my duty as a citizen. The fact that I do not want to conserve the status quo, that I want to return to what I believe is a better time in American history is exactly what makes me a conservative of the second degree. I will promote my beliefs for as long as I have the title of citizen and will defend to my death the right of any other citizen to do the same.

John McCain is dangerous to America, but Obama and Clinton are far worse. As we always have a choice, I will choose to vote for the lesser of evils. I recognize that we must prevent either Democrat from winning the November election, but that does not mean that I should stand idly by and accept wholly what the Republicans say when I view them to be wrong too. The job of our representatives is to listen to the voices of their constituency. I will never stop trying to reform this country because it will never be perfect, but it can be more perfect than it is. The youth of America are fundamentally apathetic towards politics even if they do engage in their civic duties. We shouldn’t just sit around and accept things thinking it doesn’t matter what one thinks because it will never change. Your individual vote and voice do matter and to think otherwise is to fall into the liberal trap. On election day go out and vote, vote for whomever you wish but don’t think that just because they are our options in 2008 that you can’t change how things are for 2012. If enough people want change it will happen.

Published in: on April 10, 2008 at 23:38  Comments (2)  
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

District of Columbia

The issue has been largely silent until the Democrats regained control of the House of Representatives in the past elections, but before that the House had tried on a couple of occasions to grant the District of Columbia full voting rights in the House. At one point there was an amendment passed by Congress that attempted to grant D.C. the right to vote in the House in 1978, but it failed to receive the 2/3rds majority. In 1993 the House of Representatives rejected the proposal to make D.C. a state. Currently, along side America Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico the District of Columbia has a single non voting representative in the House. This past week the House of Representatives passed a law that would provide D.C. full voting rights within the House. Putting aside the fact that none of the other Commonwealths were even considered along side D.C. (even though Puerto Rico has frequently been talked about as becoming our 51st state in recent decades), this new law is wholly unconstitutional regardless of whether D.C. alone gets a voting Representative or all four Commonwealths receive voting Representatives in the House. The text of the Constitution is clear:

“The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” – Article I section II sentence 1 of the U.S. Constitution.

D.C. is not a state, nor was it ever intended to become a state. D.C. is a Federal district, set aside for our Federal government to set up shop. While our government originally called New York City home, it was always assumed that the government would be moved to a neutral site outside of every state. D.C. is made up of sections of both Virginia and Maryland, yet it is neither Virginia nor Maryland. If D.C. were in a state, or considered a state, it could in theory hold sway over the Federal government. This is why the Founders never intended to make D.C. a state, or they would have back when Hamilton and Jefferson worked out a deal to put the capitol in the South.

The fact that the 23rd Amendment gives the District of Columbia the right to vote in Presidential elections, does not mean it should have the right to Representation along side the states. The 23rd Amendment, in so far as it provides American citizens in D.C. the right to vote is fine. However, the District itself should not be given representation in the electoral college as the amendment allows. But even then, the 23rd Amendment makes it clear as day,

“The District constituting the seat of Government of the United States shall appoint in such manner as the Congress may direct: A number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the District would be entitled if it were a State…” -23rd Amendment

The District should never have been given votes in the electoral college; it is to be comprised of electors from the several states. The inhabitants of the District should hold citizenship in another state, preferably Maryland or Virginia. Again, I point to the Federal Constitution:

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress…”- Article III section 1 sentence ii.

It is clear that the District of Columbia possesses no legal claim to statehood, as the 23rd Amendment makes clear. Only states ought to have electors in the Electoral College, as Article III of the Federal Constitution states. And the House of Representatives is to be made of members of the several states, as Article II section ii states. Thus as D.C. is not a state, it ought not to have claim to electors in the Electoral College and should not have Representation in the House of Representatives.

Lastly, the District of Columbia would only be gaining a right to vote in the House but not the Senate. This bill that has been passed would throw off the balance; Each state is given a right to vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate. You will now have 50 states plus 1 Commonwealth voting on matters in the House of Representatives but only the 50 states voting in the Senate. How is a law that is to effect the states, but would not effect the District, to be considered fair when the House of Representatives allows a body to vote that has not subject to the law? Part of what makes our system work is that the members comprising both chambers of Congress are subject to the laws they pass. If the House (now comprised of voting members from the District) and the Senate (still with the traditional 50 states represented) pass a bill that only applies to the States, but not the District, you are throwing off the delicate balance that was initially established to prevent tyranny from developing.

This bill is both wholly unconstitutional (as it violates Article II of the Federal Constitution) and violates the most sacred principle of representative government (that the people who make the laws are subject to them.) I can only hope the Senators realize the grave mistake made by their colleagues in the House.

Published in: on April 20, 2007 at 02:20  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.