Friday, April 30th, 2010

Some great discussion going on!  Love the give and take. I am learning so much from everyone’s analysis and comments, so I thought tonight I would highlight some of the quotes from Federalist No. 2, and from the posts and blog comments which especially resonate with me.

My good friend, Marc Lampkin, did an excellent job as Guest Blogger today.  We especially appreciate Marc coming back on in the afternoon to further expound on John Jay – he provided some enlightening background information.

Have you all been watching Janine’s Daily Podcasts on the website? I highly recommend you check them out each day for the lighter side of Constituting America.  Yesterday she gave us a tour of her ranch and longhorns (don’t you love their names?), and today we got to see where she does her best work – her car!  Janine and I have an ongoing battle of who has the most miles on their car.  Mine is currently at 130,405 and I believe Janine may be beating me by about 10,000 miles.  As moms, it seems we spend the majority of our day driving or sitting in parking lots waiting.  Amazing how much you can get done in a parking lot!

As for Federalist No. 2, I had several favorite passages:

“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.”

As Shannon pointed out, the people cede power to the government.  And similar to the point Janine made in her post, when we are not educated and informed, when we are lax, or not paying attention, we are making the decision to cede even more of our individual rights and liberties.

The other quote that caught my eye, and was highlighted earlier today by Susan, was:

“Admit, for so is the fact, that this plan is only RECOMMENDED, not imposed, yet let it be remembered that it is neither recommended to BLIND approbation, nor to BLIND reprobation; but to that sedate and candid consideration which the magnitude and importance of the subject demand, and which it certainly ought to receive.”

Again, the theme is an educated, engaged and thoughtful electorate.  Issues of great magnitude deserve thorough consideration. When we ground ourselves in the U.S. Constitution and the principles upon which this country was founded, we have a road map to guide us through the maze of public policy proposals that can easily lead down roads that will ultimately take our country in the wrong direction.

A big thank you to all of you who are blogging! We invite our silent partners to find your voice and let us hear from you!

And a final big thank you to our founder and co-chair, Janine Turner! Janine had the idea for Constituting America over a year ago, promptly registered the domain name, and got to work organizing!   It is her vision that has brought us the 90 in 90 = 180: History Holds the Key to the Future program. Janine is an inspiration to me, as she continually puts God, her daughter, and her country first in her life. It is an honor to serve with her in this effort.

Good night!

Cathy Gillespie

5 Responses to “April 29, 2010 – Federalist No. 2 – Cathy Gillespie”

1. Amy Winchester says:

   May 1, 2010 at 8:49 am

   I am so grateful for this Website and have been telling my friends, e-mailing them, and telling others I work with. I have never read the Federalist Papers and have found so much foundational truth and we are only on #4. What a gold mine! Anecdote: re: being informed and educated. I was at the public library the other day waiting for my grandson and thought I would read my daily Federalist reading so asked the librarian if they had a copy of theFederalist Papers. She did not know what they were and someone overhearing my said, ” I think I have heart that name before. What are they?” So I was able to inform them and the librarian took down the Web site information. We have to keep spreading the word. This is great!

2. Susan Craig says:

   May 1, 2010 at 1:35 pm

   How sad that librarians need to be informed as to the debates about our founding documents!

3. cooperscopy says:

   May 1, 2010 at 1:59 pm

   This is a great website and Miss Turner certainly has an incredible grasp of the constitution…..read: The divider in chief….at…..
   http://cooperscopy.blogspot.com/

4. Roger Jett says:

   May 2, 2010 at 12:00 am

   I just happened upon this website tonight and have not fully digested all that’s available here. I am impressed with what I see. We are in danger as a nation and one of the biggest challenges I see us facing is our lack of understanding and appreciation of what we have been blessed with. As a people, I’m afraid we have over time grown quite ignorant, but the American People are not generally stupid and ignorance can be overcome by learning and developing the ability to discern truth. To all who have played a roll in building this website I say thank you and may God bless you.

5. Rich_H says:

   June 14, 2010 at 1:45 pm

   Jay’s opening statement, “WHEN the people of America reflect that they are now called upon to decide a question, which, in its consequences, must prove one of the most important that ever engaged their attention, the propriety of their taking a very comprehensive, as well as a very serious, view of it, will be evident.” Is relevant today, Americans will have to reflect that they now must decide a question; will we return to the Constitution or abandon it for Obama’s transformation into a lesser America under the ruling thumb of a gigantic government.

   Some people suggest we need a Constitutional Convention today but do we today have people of the caliber of out Founders? Whom Jay describes as, “This convention composed of men who possessed the confidence of the people, and many of whom had become highly distinguished by their patriotism, virtue and wisdom” who “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.”

   Do we have such people who would be in that convention today?! No! We do not need a convention. We need a return to the original Constitution.

   Contrast the difference between the patriots founding our country and the leaders betraying America today. Our Founders “only RECOMMENDED, not imposed” this plan and explained the 7 page Constitution in detail with 33federalist papers. Today Obama/Dems rammed through an over 1000 page health care plan against public will, unseen and unexplained, in fact lied about. Pelosi said it needed to be passed so we would know what’s in it. How have we sunk so far?

   If the progressive left is not stopped and their damage undone, we shall surely be saying of our beloved America, “FAREWELL! A LONG FAREWELL TO ALL MY GREATNESS.”

 

 

May 3, 2010 – Federalist No. 4 – Cathy Gillespie

Tuesday, May 4th, 2010

Hello from Virginia! I made it back from Texas in the wee hours of the morning, thanks to some thunderstorms and unexpected equipment on the runway at Reagan National Airport!

To all who have been posting – Thank you!! We invite all our visitors to add their comments! We love the sense of community, and are learning so much from each of you.  If you have a question, please ask it, and if we can’t answer it, hopefully some of our blog participants can!

Federalist #4 elaborates upon a phrase stated in the preamble to the 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 defense, 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.

I’m reminded of a quote of a famous Texan from the 1970′s and 1980″s, Eddie Chiles, who said all he wanted the federal government to do was defend the shores, deliver the mail, and leave him alone!  It is no accident that Eddie Chiles started his quote with “defend the shores,” and that so many of the first Federalist Papers touch on this theme of defending our country.  It is one of the powers enumerated in the Constitution that the federal government is best equipped to perform.

The other quote that caught my eye was the last phrase: “……how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.”  As citizens of the United States, the more common ground we can find with each other, the better. And the more educated our citizens are about the founding principles of our country, the easier it will be for us to find common ground.

Good night!

Cathy Gillespie

7 Responses to “May 3, 2010 – Federalist No. 4 – Cathy Gillespie”

1. Bill Kenagy says:

   May 4, 2010 at 5:43 am

   Note in the preable it says, “promote the general welfare.” Not to provide for the general welfare.

2. Bache says:

   May 4, 2010 at 8:15 am

   A quote from Benjamin Franklin…” The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.” His saying reflects the ideology of the preamble “to promote the general welfare.”

3. Roger Jett says:

   May 4, 2010 at 10:39 am

   Good Morning Cathy Gillespie and All !

   In penning what was to become our national anthem, Francis Scott Key in 1814 at Fort McHenry, in his second verse and fourth verse, continued on the theme, “defend our shores” :

   On the shore, dimly seen through the mist of the deep,
   Where the foe’s haughty host in dread silence reposes,
   What is that which the breeze, o’er the towering steep,
   As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses ?
   Now it catches the gleam of the morning’s first beam,
   In full glory reflected now shines in the stream:
   ‘Tis the star-spangled banner ! Oh long may it wave
   O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave

   Oh! thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
   Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
   Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
   Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation,
   Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
   And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
   And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
   O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

   May God bless us, preserve us and keep us brave and free!

4. Susan J. Smith says:

   May 4, 2010 at 11:34 am

   The equality of all people stand on the OPPORTUNITY that our freedom provides. We all have the same OPPORTUNITY to “pursue happiness” without the overreach of government taking from one and giving to another. Everyone has the same opportunity to work hard and succeed, what one chooses to do with that opportunity is up to them. And if you think someone needs help use your money to help them don’t take mine(not that I have any) But I believe that we “reap what we sow” so I’m still sowing baby………

5. Julie Bedard says:

   May 4, 2010 at 12:33 pm

   @Bill Kenagy—well said. There is a big difference between “promote” and “provide”. The next queston becomes–what did they mean when they wrote “general welfare”? As we know this also has been twisted and misconstrued throughout time to move towards “social justice” policies. I take it to mean “to promote the general welfare of the UNION”–again to protect and defend the Union from external and internal sources so it remains intact for all people within the Union to live peacefully and pursue their dreams without fear of disharmony, chaos, and war.

6. Susan Craig says:

   May 4, 2010 at 4:34 pm

   The conflict of promote and provide occurs within the constitution itself. The Preamble says promote while article 1 says provide.

7. Kellie says:

   May 4, 2010 at 4:46 pm

   @Julie Bedard: Well said on the issue of interpreting the “general welfare” of the Union. I have found that those truly well-versed on the Constitution know and understand that meaning to be for the protection of the Union from external and internal sources, NOT that we provide welfare to those in need within the Union, as is currently interpreted. My fear is that it’s proper meaning is not being taught in the schools…

 

 

Wednesday, May 5th, 2010

Hi everyone – thank you to Professor Allen for your enlightening essay! And thank you to everyone for your comments today.

I love the realism of Alexander Hamilton: “men are ambitious, vindictive, and rapacious. To look for a continuation of harmony between a number of independent, unconnected sovereignties in the same neighborhood, would be to disregard the uniform course of human events, and to set at defiance the accumulated experience of ages.”

We are fortunate our founding fathers were well read students of history, philosophy and political systems.   They understood that we, as humans, are imperfect, and that civilizations through the ages have fallen victim to the character flaws of their leaders and citizens, time and time again.  The Constitution they proposed, with its delicate checks and balances, was designed to take man’s nature into account.

My favorite line from this essay was “Is it not time to awake from the deceitful dream of a golden age, and to adopt as a practical maxim for the direction of our political conduct that we, as well as the other inhabitants of the globe, are yet remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue?”

Over 200 years later, we, and the rest of the world, are still “remote from the happy empire of perfect wisdom and perfect virtue”-a state humans will most likely never attain.  As we consider how we deal with Iran and other terrorist nations, we should remember Alexander Hamilton’s words, and not assume we can simply talk things out.  These nations have not had the benefit of  freedom.  Oppression breads violence, and reinforces man’s darker side.

The United States of America, though,  is one of the greatest humanitarian and charitable nations on the planet.  How is that possible, given the nature of man as described by Hamilton?  Our founders – we the people – designed a government based on Godly principles, ceding only enough power to the government to keep man’s darker side in check, but allowing the freedom necessary for our better qualities to flourish, and be brought to bear upon the problems facing our Nation and the world.

Cathy Gillespie

PS – We are working to consolidate all blog comments onto the Daily Guest Bloggers page, and Janine and I will be posting our daily essasy on the Guest Blogger’s Post as “Comments” as well as the usual standalone posts.  Please post all your blog comments on the Guest Bloggers Page so its easy to see all the great comments in one place! Thank you!

 

Tuesday, May 11th, 2010

It’s been exciting to see so many blog participants today! A big thank you to those who are with us every day, and an enthusiastic welcome to some of our newer folks!   Each of you brings a unique and valuable perspective to these pieces.  The larger the group we hear from, the more complete and “whole” our understanding becomes!

I was fascinated by the descriptions of factions in human nature, with faction defined as a group, majority or minority, united by a common passion or interest “adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community.”  Knowing we can’t control the cause of these factions, the founders set out to control the effects.

Madison argues that a republic is more effective than a democracy in controlling the effects of factions.  I would bet that most citizens today cannot explain the difference between a republic and a democracy.  Federalist No. 10 not only explains the difference, but outlines the reasons why a Republic is more effective than a Democracy in representing the broad interests of the community and Nation.

I loved this sentence: “A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal distribution of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it.”

Madison saw “an equal distribution of property” as “improper and wicked.” There is a moral case to be made for allowing the spirit of free enterprise to reign in our society.  Men possess different abilities, and their “diverse faculties” produce different classes of property owners.  A republic balances the interests of these different classes.

Finally, towards the end of Federalist No. 10, a sentence that made me smile: “In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried.”  It is interesting to see that over 200 years ago, they still had problems with “dirty tricks,” in campaigns!

Thank you again to everyone for your insights today!!

Cathy Gillespie

3 Responses to “May 11, 2010 – Federalist No. 10 – Cathy Gillespie”

1. Dave says:

   May 12, 2010 at 7:02 pm

   Cathy, you commented on Madison’s acknowledgment that men by nature possess a diversity of faculties. But, what almost jumped off the page for me was the next sentence–”The protection of these faculties is the first object of government.” This idea is similar to what Jefferson wrote in the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence telling us that governments are instituted among men to secure our unalienable rights. Our diverse faculties are such an integral part of who we are that they are probably as unalienable as life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. One can come to a paradoxical conclusion that when individuals with diverse faculties, situated differently in time and space, are truly free, the result is a whole lot of inequality–that’s material inequality not political inequality. So a necessary corollary of liberty is inequality and it then follows that a prime function of government is actually to protect inequality. Of course in the long run, society is better off if individuals are allowed to flourish using the unique faculties with which they have been endowed. This is a problem today in an era of identity politics, the politics of envy and class warfare–individuals can’t be allowed to flourish.

   It is clear to me that the Founders conceived of government, properly structured, as a means of protecting us from one another. The modern conception of government for most Americans is diametrically opposed to the Founders’ conception. Today, we have some Americans using government to invade the property rights and impair the faculties of other Americans. Government today is seen as a provider government; a government that will provide not only the bare necessities, but also a house, a job with a certain pay level, medical care, a car, internet, a cell phone and, most recently, appliances. And what most people fail to realize, or they do realize and just don’t care, is that before the government can provide anything to anyone it must first take resources or labor from some other citizens. So now we have an ever-growing segment of our population who wish to obtain for themselves through the force of government that which they refuse to provide for themselves by tapping into that quintessential American trait of an “unequaled spirit of enterprise.” The Founders no doubt were familiar with the fundamental law of economics that says, “Man tends always to satisfy his needs and desires through the least possible effort.” If it’s easier to get something through political means using coercion than through economic means using voluntary contracts and transactions, then men lacking virtue won’t waste any time to start organizing to gain control the political process with the singular aim of redistribution.

2. Susan Craig says:

   May 13, 2010 at 1:57 pm

   Ah yes another prime example of the hubris of man. Man thinks that he can equalize and homogenize what GOD has created as diverse and interesting. This ranks right up there with the belief that puny man could possibly destroy anything as complex and wonderful as the climate of the earth. Yes we can soil to uninhabitability our own particular corner but on a global scale not so much.

3. The Glenn Beck Review says:

   July 14, 2010 at 12:32 pm

   Madison also saw large corporations as an evil. so the “moral case to be made for allowing the spirit of free enterprise to reign in our society” was not as cut and dry as Libertarians make it seem. Madison wrote that “there is an evil which ought to be guarded agst in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The power of all corporations, ought to be limited in this respect” – – James Madison, Detached Memoranda, circa 1817

   This pretty much contradicts the “moral case to be made” in favor of a progressive case for trust busting and legislating against “too big to fail.”

 

 

Tuesday, May 18th, 2010

Federalist #14

First, a big thank you to Dr. Allen for his insightful comments.  As usual, Dr. Allen does much more than simply explain to us what is in the reading, he takes us several steps further.

And thank you to all of you who commented today.  Especially to Kay for her heartfelt story about the airport encounter, and the glimpse into the soul of our Union.

Wow! I loved Federalist #14!  There are so many beautiful passages about unity in our country –  “the kindred blood which flows in the veins of American citizens, the mingled blood which they have shed in defense of their sacred rights, consecrate their Union, and excite horror at the idea of their becoming aliens, rivals, enemies.” While the American people “have paid a decent regard to the opinions of former times and other nations, they have not suffered a blind veneration for antiquity, for custom, or for names, to overrule the suggestions of their own good sense, the knowledge of their own situation, and the lessons of their own experience…”  But the item that most caught my attention was the discussion of the difference between a republic and a democracy. I was struck by the fact that many of the communication and travel constraints our founding fathers operated under have been removed in present day by technology, and by the fact that technology is facilitating our country’s move toward democracy, something our founding fathers would not see as an improvement.

The difference between a republic and a democracy is so important, and so little understood.  In Federalist 14 and elsewhere, Publius devotes a good amount of time explaining the difference between these two forms of government, and detailing the weaknesses of a democracy as opposed to a republic.  In our founding fathers’ time, a democracy within a large geographic area was impossible, limited by the “distance from the central point which will just permit the most remote citizens to assemble as often as their public functions demand, and will include no greater number than can join in those functions.”  In Federalist 14 Madison points out that the geographic size makes the United States much more suited to a republic than a democracy.

Today, technology has erased the constraint imposed by geographic size, and our culture is drawing us towards democracy. Television shows such as American Idol where millions of people cast ballots; online polls where instant readouts of the public’s tastes, preferences and opinions are measured; Twitter, Facebook: all put more power than ever in the collective public’s hands to instantly express opinions on any matter.

But the weakness of pure democracy is the same, whether it is a small geographic area where the people are physically coming together to vote on every issue affecting them, or whether it is millions sitting at computers, in front of their televisions, or texting on their cellphones “voting.”  As Hamilton states in Federalist 71, “The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.”

In Federalist 10 the weakness of pure democracy was summed up this way: “From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

As the culture draws us toward democracy, and with the geographic constraints on democracy removed by technology, it is more important than ever that we understand the systemic flaws of this type of governance.

Our elected officials must be firmly grounded in the meaning of the republic, and their role in balancing competing interests and factions.  We must understand the fundamental reasoning and principles that drew our founding fathers to govern through a republic, and the Federalist Papers are vital for that understanding.

I am so grateful for all who are adding to our knowledge base each day, and journeying with us through these readings.  Thank you!!

Good night and God Bless!

Cathy Gillespie

 

Thursday, May 20th, 2010

A big thank you to our guest blogger Marc Lampkin! Marc, thank you for guiding us today!

I so appreciate all of you who take the time to comment.  You often see nuggets of wisdom in these papers that I have glossed over on my first reading, and your posts send me scrambling back to find the phrases you elaborate on.

Two phrases jumped out at me upon my first reading of Federalist 16, though, and they are the same mentioned by Nickie and Carolyn:

An experiment of this nature would always be hazardous in the face of a constitution in any degree competent to its own defense, and of a people enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. The success of it would require not merely a factious majority in the legislature, but the concurrence of the courts of justice and of the body of the people. If the judges were not embarked in a conspiracy with the legislature, they would pronounce the resolutions of such a majority to be contrary to the supreme law of the land, unconstitutional, and void. If the people were not tainted with the spirit of their State representatives, they, as the natural guardians of the Constitution, would throw their weight into the national scale and give it a decided preponderancy in the contest. Attempts of this kind would not often be made with levity or rashness, because they could seldom be made without danger to the authors, unless in cases of a tyrannical exercise of the federal authority.

“A people enlightened,”  ”natural guardians of the Constitution”

“We the people,” are the natural guardians of the Constitution, because as our country drifts from the Constitution, it is “We the people,” who have the most to lose.  If we are not “enlightened,” to understand what we had, and have, we will certainly not know what we have lost, and are losing.  And our children will understand even less than us. We must not only enlighten ourselves, but enlighten our children, so the torch of freedom may be passed to the next generation of Americans.  Watch Janine’s Behind The Scenes Videos starting today, as she teaches her daughter about the Constitution in a several part series!  Janine Turner Short Film Part 1 Constituting America

I am both amazed, and a bit embarrassed to admit how much I am learning through this exercise. I graduated from Texas A&M University with a B.A. in political science, yet I don’t recall ever picking up the Federalist in college.  This reading is my first time through these prescient papers.   Tonight, I feel empowered that I am becoming “enlightened,” and that the founding fathers considered us – ‘we the people” – to be the guardians of the Constitution.   The more I learn, the better I can guard it!  And the more I can teach my children! On to Federalist No. 17!

Good night and God Bless,

Your fellow guardian of the Constitution,

Cathy Gillespie

2 Responses to “May 19, 2010 – Federalist No. 16 – Cathy Gillespie”

Mark Hansbauer says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:30 am
The people must be “enlightened enough to distinguish between a legal exercise and an illegal usurpation of authority. . . .”
The distinction between a “legal exercise” and an “illegal usurpation of authority” implies knowledge of the difference between “legal” and “illegal.” Is a governmental action “legal” simply because it follows precedent or is based on a plausible interpretation of the Constitution? Is such action “illegal” when it contravenes precedent or is based on a novel interpretation of the Constitution? These questions bring out the possibility that it is not sufficient for the people to understand the Constitution merely at the textual level. There has to be knowledge of standards that ‘stand above’ the Constitution, not to usurp it, but through which we arrive at the fullest and most just construction of the document.

Dave says:
May 20, 2010 at 11:30 am
Mark, good observation. The Constitution did not come complete with a rule book for construction or, as we would say, interpretation. Who is to decide what is constitutional? How are they to go about the process of deciding? And on what are they relying? It seems to me that the approach to the Constitution has become one of avoidance. Interested parties have an agenda or result in mind and then scour through the case law to find any little precedent they can hang their hat on to nudge the law incrementally toward their desired result.
Each incremental step away from the Constitution seems completely innocuous, plausible and reasonable. But after 230+ years, the “constitution” they are interpreting is strikingly different from the one the framers put their name on. Others have likened it to generations of judges and legal scholars attempting to improve an Old Master painting with a brush stroke here and a brush stroke there. Hubristic acts of defacement and vandalism are what I call those narrow-minded, agenda-driven improvements. Want a different constitution?–AMEND IT! There are, after all, amendment provisions.
Some legal minds get it. Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas come to mind. There are others:
“I claim the right to look at the Constitution itself, stripped of judicial encrustations, as the index of constitutional law.”–Justice Jackson
A judge “remembers above all that it is the Constitution which he swore to support and defend, not the gloss which his predecessors may have put upon it.”–Justice Douglas
“The ultimate touchstone of constitutionality is the Constitution itself and not what we have said about it.”–Justice Frankfurter
The Founders did not suffer from delusions of grandeur; Hamilton says it was never about “the chimerical pursuit of a perfect plan. I never expect to see a perfect work from imperfect man.” (No. 85) They did give us constitutional means to make it “more perfect.” I wish we would use those means instead of unconstitutional ones which rely on the arbitrary policy preferences of unelected judges with lifetime tenure.
We have ended up with, as other Constituting America contributors have mentioned, the Orwellian doublespeak of engaging in commerce by not engaging in commerce. (see Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 11 (1942))
Mark, sometimes what I see is not a question of knowledge of what’s “legal” or “illegal.” They have the knowledge; they just want a different outcome. Thanks for getting me to think about these ideas.

Friday, May 21st, 2010

Another week of 90 in 90: History Holds the Key to the Future draws to a close!  Thank you to Andrew Langer for your participation as a Guest Constitutional Blogger! And thank you to everyone who is posting such well thought out and researched comments.

In Federalist 18, the founding fathers are telling us that History, indeed does hold the Key To the Future, as the name of this blog indicates.

Not even a fourth of the way through the 85 Federalist Papers, and we have all been amazed at the foresight of the founding fathers.   They seem to have an uncanny ability to see the future.   We know they did not have a crystal ball or special powers, so what was their secret? The answer is that they were extremely well read students of history, philosophy, and human nature.   They took the time to think; they actually thought about the future, and used their knowledge to predict outcomes if certain paths were chosen.

Today, we live in an instant gratification society. If a problem is not immediately upon us, it is not dealt with.  If a problem looms twenty years away, we do not want to address it.  Our founding fathers had a much longer vision looking ahead, and looking back.

The depth of knowledge of the founders about ancient civilizations, and the lessons drawn from them is fascinating.  As Juliette, Janine’s daughter observed, they knew all this and didn’t even have Google!

The founders took the time to study these ancient civilizations so they could draw the important lessons from them:  the necessity of a closer union so the strong states would not tyrannize the weak, that “a weak government, when not at war, is ever agitated by internal dissentions, so these never fail to bring on fresh calamities from abroad,” that a stronger union can repel invaders.

Somewhere along the way our society has lost respect for history.  People want to alter it, to make it fit their world view.  In arrogance we believe we are immune from the mistakes of the past and don’t take the time to analyze events or draw lessons from them.

In today’s comments, Ron made an important point – to change this culture of disrespect for and ignorance of history, we need to take action! He encouraged us to “find some historical event that you’re passionate about, do the research, and tell the story. Service clubs need speakers for every week’s meetings, so there are plenty of opportunities. We just have to do it. Taking action is important. Exercises like this should stimulate us to some action; if we finish this FP exercise and go back to living our lives as we did before, then we’ve gained knowledge, but done nothing to rediscover our heritage or, more importantly, to help others do the same.”

Ron is so right!!  As we read the Federalist, our eyes open to many truths, one of which is the importance of looking at lessons from history as we move forward.   We need to find ways to take action, and share what we are learning with others.  Whether it is Ron’s idea of speaking to civic clubs, or simply forwarding a link to this blog to your personal email list, you can make a difference in  opening people’s eyes to the founding principles of our country, and the importance of knowing the United States Constitution.

Thank you to each of you for all you do for our Nation!

Good night and God Bless!

Cathy Gillespie

One Response to “May 21, 2010 – Federalist No. 18 – Cathy Gillespie”

Barb Zakszewski says:
May 24, 2010 at 6:39 pm
I like Ron’s idea too. We must take the knowledge we are gaining and share it, or it will just grow old and stale in our brains. I’ve been talking to everyone I can think of, informing this of this website and the knowledge I’m gaining…I actually write a small column for the monthly newsletter of a club I belong to and have told our editor of my plans to start writing a summary of the what’ I’m learning here each month!! I’ve constantly encouraged my club’s members to become active, and as Janine says, “knowledge is POWER!!!”. Let’s all spread the word!!

Wednesday, May 26th, 2010

“Experience is the oracle of truth; and where its responses are unequivocal, they ought to be conclusive and sacred.”

Thank you Mr. Duncan for your excellent observation that the founders relied on experience to ascertain truth, not “their unaided ability to reason out new solutions,” not “subtle thinking and cleverness,” and definitely not partisan politics.

Thanks to our enlightened, well educated founding fathers, the United States of America rests on the foundation of thousands of years of lessons learned from many civilizations.  As Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 9, “The science of politics, however, like most other sciences, has received great improvement. The efficacy of various principles is now well understood, which were either not known at all, or imperfectly known to the ancients.”

Our culture does not value history as much as it once did.  And there is an undisputable massive effort underway to re-write the history that we are teaching our children.  If our leaders are ever to return to a framework for decision making that incorporates an objective look at history, we must all work, in our own way, to instill in our children and fellow citizens a renewed passion for learning about the past.  We must work to preserve the integrity and accuracy of the history taught in our schools.

I am still thinking about Ron’s call to action last week in the comments section of Federalist No. 18, and how important it is that we all engage in culture creation.

As Janine so eloquently wrote in her op-ed,  A Call to Arms for America’s Parents, we as parents must take responsibility for teaching or children history.  We can start with some of the excellent books by Dr. William J. Bennett, including The American Patriot’s Almanac and America: The Last Best Hope Volume I and II. We can encourage our children to enter Constituting America’s We the People 9.17 Contest, asking them to think about and articulate how the U.S. Constitution is relevant today.  And we can share the 90 in 90: History Holds the Key to the Future project with our families.

Sign up for our newsletter email list and forward the emails out to your friends.  Forward the link to Juliette Turner’s Youth Videos like the one below where she reads from Dr. Bennett’s book and talks about the First Amendment.

Juliette Turner\’s Weekly National Youth Director Video

We can each have an impact in our circle of influence.  And if we all work in our own small way to change the culture, to encourage an awakening to our country’s roots, foundation, and founding principles, to encourage a thirst for learning the lessons written for us in history, we will succeed.

Good night and God Bless!

Cathy Gillespie

 

Thursday, May 27th, 2010

Thank you Dr. Morrissey for walking us through Federalist No. 22!  Publius certainly covers a lot of ground in this Federalist Paper!  If only our current elected officials would take the time to methodically explain major proposed legislation in this manner.   Our “sound bite” culture and collective short attention span does not lend itself to deeply and thoroughly understanding the many issues facing us.

The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation were many: lack of federal regulation of commerce, including foreign commerce and interstate commerce; the weakness of the state quota system for raising armies; problems of equal suffrage among the states; the weaknesses of the 2/3 majority requirement for important resolutions ; lack of “one Supreme Tribunal,” and overall so many problems with the Articles of Confederation that they were not deemed fixable by amendment.  Publius goes on to point out the weakness of a Congress with only one legislative body, and the final and most important flaw: The people never ratified the Articles of Confederation.  It is with this final point that my favorite quote from Federalist 22 appears:

“The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.”

One of the things I have enjoyed most about reading The Federalist are the quotes like the one above, that leap off the page, and speak to us so clearly, 223 years later.  They encapsulate principles that our country has drifted from, and remind us of the intent of the founders.  When these principles are followed, our country flourishes.  When we drift from them, we stagnate.

If only our founding fathers could come back today, and write a series of Federalist Papers where they analyze our current governmental structure in the same manner they analyze the Articles of Confederation, and methodically itemize all the places our country has deviated from their original founding principles.  I have a feeling they would have a hard time confining their essays to 85!

Good night and God Bless!

Cathy Gillespie

 

Wednesday, June 2nd, 2010

Thanks to everyone who joined our discussion today, and to our Guest Constitutional Scholar Bloggers, Daren Bakst and Troy Kickler!

I asked you all last night to help us recruit kids to enter the We The People 9.17 Contest, Entries due July 4!  Thank you!! We have had several new online signups today at https://constitutingamerica.org/contestsignup.php Please keep spreading the word!!

Here is one additional request – as you recruit young people to the contest, please ask their parents, and the older kids, to join us on this blog! We learn so much from each other. The more people we have participating, the more we learn!!

Tonight, the first paragraph of Federalist #26 grabbed my attention.  I even printed it off and carried it down the hall to show my husband who was trying to watch TV in peace!  But as he read the sentences below, he agreed – these words ARE relevant today:

IT WAS a thing hardly to be expected that in a popular revolution the minds of men should stop at that happy mean which marks the salutary boundary between POWER and PRIVILEGE, and combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another; we may try change after change; but we shall never be likely to make any material change for the better.

I admit I had to look up a few words. I had a vague understanding of their meanings, but reading the definitions added to the richness of Hamilton’s message.

ameliorate – to make or become better, more bearable, or more satisfactory; improve; meliorate.

chimerical – 1 : existing only as the product of unchecked imagination : fantastically visionary or improbable
2 : given to fantastic schemes

Even though Publius uses this first paragraph to make his case for the legislature to have the power to provide for national defense, these words reverberate with meaning, as I think of the numerous ways the balance between “legislative power and liberty” (thank you Mr. Bakst & Kickler for that phrase) has been disrupted.

Our founders created a system of checks and balances, and nothing less than our freedom is dependent upon its equilibrium.   Whether we tip too far towards anarchy, as Hamilton feared if the legislature wasn’t granted the power to provide for the national defense, or too far towards government control in our lives, the result is a deviation from the system of government our founding fathers so carefully designed.  When “We the people” allow the government to get out of balance, we allow our liberty to fade, creating those “inconveniences,” Hamilton references, and we fail to make “any material change for the better.”

Good night and God Bless!

Cathy Gillespie

 

Another great day for Constituting America as Janine and Juliette continue their Constituting America East Coast Tour!

Today I had the privilege of joining Janine at the DC FOX Studios, where she taped an interview with Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday.  Janine will be featured as Power Player of the Week this Sunday, June 20. Click here to check your local listings for airtime!

I can’t think of anyone who deserves it more.  As founder and Co-Chair of Constituting America, Janine has put her visionary idea into action, and is making a difference at the most fundamental level of our political system.  She is reminding us of our roots, inspiring us to learn about the Constitution, and the founding principles of our government.   I am honored to serve as co-chair of this effort with her, and am looking forward to seeing her as Power Player of the Week this Sunday!

Regarding tonight’s Federalist Paper No. 36:

Barrels of ink in the Federalist Papers were devoted to taxes – a sensitive subject for our forefathers.  Taxation without representation had been one of the causes of the American Revolution, and Publius obviously saw taxation as an issue that could derail ratification if not sufficiently understood.

Taxes are no less sensitive an issue for the public today.  Many a candidate has lost an election after being accused of raising taxes, wanting to raise taxes, or not paying his taxes!

In Federalist 36, Hamilton closes out a seven part series of explaining the federal and the states’ role in taxation, as well as defends the Constitution and the structure and powers set out for taxation.  Again and again through this seven part series it is evident that Hamilton could not have predicted the size and scope of today’s federal government, and the tax burden it puts on the American people.

Hamilton had envisioned minimal state taxes:

“When the particular debts of the States are done away, and their expenses come to be limited within their natural compass, the possibility almost of interference will vanish. A small land tax will answer the purpose of the States, and will be their most simple and most fit resource.”

However, states tax much more than land these days!  Only nine states don’t have a state income tax!  What happened?  One contributing factor to the ever increasing taxes at the state level are unfunded federal mandates, another way the federal government has crept slowly across Constitutional boundaries. As I was doing a bit of research for tonight’s essay, I stumbled upon a fascinating website:

The National Conference of State Legislators, http://www.ncsl.org Standing Committee on Budgets and Review has a section on their website called Mandate Monitor .  Unfunded federal mandates are tracked and catalogued on this site.  The most recent edition of the unfunded federal mandates list can be downloaded on this link: http://www.ncsl.org/documents/standcomm/scbudg/CatalogJune2009.pdf

Check out this weblink and list to see how much and what kind of burden our federal government is putting on the states!

As Jesse reminded us tonight, and as Janine likes to say: “Knowledge is power!”

Please continue to spread the word about Constituting America, our 90 in 90: History Holds the Key to the Future Blog, and the We The People 9.17 Contest for Kids! Please invite your friends to join us in our educational journey!

Thank you to all who are participating with us on the 90 in 90 Blog! Your voice is important, and we thank you for your gift of time, and your well thought out contributions.

Good night and God Bless,

Cathy Gillespie

Thursday, June 17th, 2010

First, a reminder to watch Fox News Sunday, for Janine as Power Player of the Week! Chris Wallace does a great sit down interview with Janine about Constituting America! Check your local listings for airtimes!

Thank you, Professor Knipprath for your essays yesterday and today.  You have a great way of not only explaining, but augmenting and filling in the gaps!

I would like to echo Seth’s comments today, lauding the open and vigorous debate the founders engaged in during the ratification process.  In this essay, Madison takes on the anti-federalists in the most direct attack yet,  by listing their objections, including a lack of bill of rights, disagreement on how the bill of rights should be framed, unequal representation for big states in the Senate and small states in the U.S. House, concern about the power of direct taxation, wariness of possible taxes on consumption, worry of a tendency towards monarchy, etc. The list goes on and on.

Madison eloquently points out that the document is not perfect, but better than the alternative:

“It is a matter both of wonder and regret, that those who raise so many objections against the new Constitution should never call to mind the defects of that which is to be exchanged for it. It is not necessary that the former should be perfect; it is sufficient that the latter is more imperfect.”

Indeed, one of the most beautiful traits of our Constitution is that the founders knew it was not perfect.  They had a mechanism to address that: the amendment process.

The amendments trace our country’s history, and are a vivid reminder for all to see of our country’s attempt to refine this majestic document.  Some of the amendments have been wiser than others.  Some corrected grave injustices, and some made changes that in hindsight may have been better left unmade.  But they all reflect the founders’ intent as to how the Constitution should be modified, if change is to be made.  Even the amendment process contains checks and balances!

Federalist No. 38 is an example of our country’s grand tradition of political debate at its finest.  Through the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, both sides were thoroughly aired in a way that is a lost art in our modern culture.

Thank you to all who participate in the civil, intelligent and insightful political discourse on this site, in the true tradition of the founding fathers!

Have a wonderful weekend,

Cathy Gillespie
Friday, June 18th, 2010

Federalist No. 40 brings up a subject I have been curious about since embarking upon this journey through the Federalist Papers in April.  How did the delegates, charged with revising the Articles of Confederation, justify constructing an entirely new government?

Madison lays out the case brilliantly.  First quoting the recommendation of the  Annapolis Meeting in September of 1786,  and then the Congressional Recommendation of February 1787, Madison carefully analyzes the language used.  He emphasizes the words, “such further provisions adequate to the exigencies of the union,” from Annapolis, and the words from the Congressional recommendation “establishing in these states a firm national government,” and “such further provisions…adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.”

He then questions, if the goals in the mission statement are “irreconcilably at variance with each other,” i.e.:

a “NATIONAL and ADEQUATE GOVERNMENT could not possibly, in the judgment of the convention, be affected by ALTERATIONS and PROVISIONS in the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION; which part of the definition ought to have been embraced, and which rejected?”

Madison points out that one phrase deals with means, “alterations and provisions in the articles,” and the other with the ends, “national and adequate government adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union.” Madison argues the ends are more important than the means.  While this view gave us our Constitution, it is an arguably dangerous view for our elected officials to take, and one that has been employed from time to time throughout our history and other civilizations to justify various acts.

Possibly realizing the danger of this mindset, Madison goes on to argue that, in fact, the it may not be impossible to reconcile the two charges of “alterations and provisions in the articles” with a “national and adequate government.”

He proceeds to walk through each step, stating:

1.  an alteration of the TITLE, could “never be deemed an exercise of ungranted power.”

2. “ALTERATIONS in the body of the instrument are expressly authorized.”

3. “NEW PROVISIONS therein are also expressly authorized.”

4. Is “power is infringed, so long as a part of the old articles remain?”

Madison identifies the major departure from the charge  of Annapolis and the Congressional recommendation as the change in the ratification process, from the requirement of the confirmation of all states, to the requirement of the approval of nine states.  The founders altered the ratification process because they did not want to put the fate of the union in the hands of the 13^th state.

While Madison lays out the case for the scope of governmental reform undertaken by the delegates, in the end he reminds us that whatever the delegates proposed, “it is to be of no more consequence than the paper on which it is written, unless it be stamped with the approbation of those to whom it is addressed.”

In the end, the judgment rested with the people, as it does with us today.

God Bless,

Cathy Gillespie
Wednesday, June 23rd, 2010

 

“But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.”

This quote sums up the challenges the founders faced in pulling such disparate interests together for the common good.  Each state presumably had laws in place that favored their particular state.  From commerce to naturalization, the elected leaders of the states had crafted policy to benefit their parochial interests.  Even though Madison makes very convincing arguments for the necessity of the powers claimed by the Congress, it must have been very difficult for the States to cede some of their authority, even for their collective long term gain.

It is indeed a miracle that the delegates were able to set aside their states’ “impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain,” and produce the United States Constitution!

“Impatient Avidity for immediate and immoderate gain,” continues to be the stumbling block for many governmental reforms today, aggravated by our immediate gratification culture.  If we want to read a book, we download it to our Kindle.  If we want to watch a movie, we download it to our laptop or TV.  We grab songs mid-air straight off the radio and pull them into our iPods!  Hungry? Pop a meal into the microwave or drive through your favorite restaurant.  Want to go somewhere? Hop on an airplane.  Talk to someone? Call them on your cell or text them! If our computer is “slow,” meaning a page takes a few extra seconds to load, our blood pressure rises.

Given this way of life, it is no surprise that we want quick fixes to the policy problems our country faces.  We don’t have the patience to work out the hard issues. Unlike our founding fathers, we have been unwilling to make short term sacrifices for long term gain.

Instead of doing the hard work necessary to reach a consensus in line with our country’s founding principles, and that most Americans could accept, health care reform was hurriedly passed in a matter of months.

Most people agree a simpler income tax code such as a flat tax, or a national sales tax in place of an income tax, would be an improvement on our complicated system!  Yet, those who benefit from the complex code, or who currently pay no taxes, find it hard to support a reform that would cause them to personally sacrifice short term, but in the end bring more freedom and prosperity to all.

The same holds true for social security reform.  Those currently receiving social security, or those who are about to receive it, do not want to give up their “immediate…..gain,” to support a reform that could ensure long term security of our citizens.

Our energy policy poses a similar challenge.  We know our dependence on foreign oil is a problem, and depending on our relations with the world, could put our country in a crisis situation.  But what are we doing to address it?

Susan mentioned immigration policy as another example of a “hard issue,” that our leaders have not had the tenacity to tackle.

These types of reform and legislative action take long term vision, and often cause some short term sacrifice.  Our founders had the vision and fortitude to work through the tough problems and overcome “the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.”

Can our elected officials do the same? We The People must make our voice heard, and encourage them to pursue policy with a zeal for the overall good, in line with our founding principles, despite “clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain.”

Good night and God Bless,

Cathy Gillespie

Friday, June 25th, 2010

Federalist No. 46 – The Influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared – How is this relevant today?

Tomorrow, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will appear before U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson to argue against lawyers from the Obama Administration, who have filed a motion to dismiss Virginia’s challenge to the recently passed healthcare bill.

Cuccinelli will argue that the provision that forces citizens to purchase health insurance by 2014 or pay a fine, is in violation of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, because it compels citizens to engage in commerce.

Virginia recently passed a law stating that Virginians do not have to purchase health insurance. Florida has filed a lawsuit similar to Virginia’s, and over 20 states have joined.

Cuccinelli is quoted in today’s Richmond Times Dispatch as follows, “”The Commerce Clause [of the U.S. Constitution] does not give the federal government the power to order you to buy a product.  We’re fighting to protect liberty as best as we can.”

The Richmond Times Dispatch article goes on to quote Governor McDonnell as saying that the healthcare legislation would cost Virginia an additional $1.5 billion in health care costs by 2022. One of the primary cost factors is the expansion of Medicaid.

As Madison predicted:

“On the other hand, should an unwarrantable measure of the federal government be unpopular in particular States, which would seldom fail to be the case, or even a warrantable measure be so, which may sometimes be the case, the means of opposition to it are powerful and at hand. The disquietude of the people; their repugnance and, perhaps, refusal to co-operate with the officers of the Union; the frowns of the executive magistracy of the State; the embarrassments created by legislative devices, which would often be added on such occasions, would oppose, in any State, difficulties not to be despised; would form, in a large State, very serious impediments; and where the sentiments of several adjoining States happened to be in unison, would present obstructions which the federal government would hardly be willing to encounter.”

And:

“They must be told that the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone, and that it will not depend merely on the comparative ambition or address of the different governments, whether either, or which of them, will be able to enlarge its sphere of jurisdiction at the expense of the other.”

Throughout the Federalist Papers, the above themes surface again and again.  The ultimate authority of the government derives from the people.  If the federal government oversteps its bounds, the people will sound the alarm, and the states will rise to defend their rights.

For many years, and for various reasons the people and the states have let the federal government slowly encroach.  But the people are awake, and are awakening the states.  The alarm is sounding.

Tomorrow, Cuccinelli’s court appearance is an important step in guiding our country back to the path of liberty, and back to the constitutional structure envisioned by our founding fathers.

AND Thank you to David Kopel! I LOVED the breakdown of how many state, federal, local employees there are, and how many military! Last night when I read Madison’s statement in Federalist 45 that fewer people will be federal employees than state employees, I immediately began trying to find those numbers, and finally gave up, because it was so late.  I was happy to read your essay this morning and see that you had them.

Thank you to all those who commented today, and thank you to our founder and co-chair Janine Turner for her great press appearances today on Laura Ingraham and Megyn Kelly!  I believe it was Chris Wallace who said Janine is spreading the word like a modern day Paul Revere.  I could not think of a better description. All of you who are participating in this blog, and in the Constituting America effort are great patriots, and our founding fathers would be proud.

Good night and God Bless!

Cathy Gillespie

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Federalist 53 was a reminder to me of how blessed our country is to live under a system of government “established by the people and unalterable by the government.”

“The important distinction so well understood in America, between a Constitution established by the people and unalterable by the government, and a law established by the government and alterable by the government, seems to have been little understood and less observed in any other country. Wherever the supreme power of legislation has resided, has been supposed to reside also a full power to change the form of the government.”

We forget that in many other countries, terms of office may be capriciously changed to meet the political needs of the office holders.

Publius refers to “frequency of elections,” as the “cornerstone” of free government.  A theme throughout the Federalist is the people’s role in protecting their own liberty.  Elections are the people’s voice.

Publius also outlines the importance of members of Congress having enough time to learn the job.  He predicts that some members of “superior talents; will, by frequent reelections, become members of long standing.”

A recent Congressional Research Service report on the average tenure of a member of Congress  stated:

“The average years of service for Members of the 110th Congress, as of January 3, 2007, when the Congress convened was 10.0 years for the House and 12.82 years for the Senate. This is a record for the Senate. House Members who took their seats at the beginning of the 102nd Congress (1991-1993) represent the high point of Representatives’ average tenure (10.4 years).”

This is interesting, compared to the early history of our country, when most Senators did not even complete their six year term.  CRS notes that in the early Republic, House Members began to exceed their two year terms after the Fourth Congress, but their average service did rise above four years until 1901-1903.  During the Great Depression, the average tenure of a U.S. House member shot up to seven years.

Many people today call for term limits, to bring back the concept of citizen legislator.  As these proposals develop, attention would need to be given to the power of staff, especially committee staff, who, if not checked as well, would end up with even greater influence as members of Congress come and go.

Although Publius points out the merit of some seasoned legislators, he also warns, “No man will subject himself to the ridicule of pretending that any natural connection subsists between the sun or the seasons, and the period within which human virtue can bear the temptations of power.”

There are strong arguments on both sides of the term limits issue, but as Publius reminds us in Federalist No. 51:

“A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government.”

The people are the energy of the government. When they are engaged and paying attention, recognizing that knowledge is power, the need for term limits will not be as great. Even the best governmental structures will not reap the desired results, unless the “genius of the people,” the primary energy of government is fully engaged and deployed.

Thank you to all of you who are joining us on this journey through the Federalist Papers.  Knowledge is Power!

Looking forward to Federalist No. 54!

Cathy Gillespie

Friday, July 9th, 2010

Greetings from Mt. Vernon, Virginia!  Ed and I make our home on land that once belonged to President George Washington.  His home, Mt. Vernon, is not far from our house!   I find today’s issue of the total number of the House of Representatives even more fascinating because it was the only issue on which President Washington offered an opinion during the Constitutional Convention!  As our distinguished Guest Constitutional Scholar, David Bobb points out, George Washington seconded a motion to reduce the ratio of House Members to people from 40,000: 1 to 30,000: 1.  This must have signified Washington’s strong feelings that the U.S. House be “of the people.”

I’ve spent most of my career working in and around Congress and never knew that the original ratio in the U.S. Constitution of U.S. House Member to constituents was 30,000: 1 !!  I do know that the average Congressional district today contains roughly 700,000 people.  I also know that the immense size of these districts, both by population, and often geographically, makes it expensive to run campaigns, and demanding, schedule-wise, for U.S. House members to be all the places they need to be.

Dr. Bobb points out the last time an adjustment was made in total size of the U.S. House was 1912, when it was adjusted to 435, the current number today. Despite the fact that the size of the U.S. House has not been adjusted since the early 1900’s, I believe it would be very difficult, expensive, and not necessary for quality of representation, to increase the size of the U.S. House.

Increasing the size of the U.S. House would necessitate adding more office space and staff, a difficult proposition on crowded Capitol Hill. Staff are already crammed into every nook and cranny that exist in the House office buildings, and many Committee staff are blocks away in “annex” office space.  One could argue that if the size of the U.S. House were to be increased, individual staff sizes per Member and office budgets per member could be reduced. In practice, it is hard to imagine Members of Congress voting to reduce their staff or office budgets, even if the number of constituents they represented decreased.

With today’s technology, members of Congress are able to represent much larger congressional districts, yet be in touch with their constituents in more direct and intimate ways than their 1912 counterparts ever dreamed possible.  Members of Congress “tweet”;  answer messages on Facebook; participate in “tele-Town Hall Meetings” (large dial in conference calls); hold interactive polls on their websites; hire pollsters to conduct professional polls; receive instantaneous input on legislation via email (rather than wait days for snail mail to catch up with their votes cast); field thousands of telephone calls to their offices, and of course still hold the traditional town hall meetings.  In geographically large congressional districts members often traverse the district via airplane.  Youtube, 24 hour cable TV news, the plethora of radio and internet talk shows and blogs, all put members of Congress at an engaged citizen’s fingertips.

Many would argue that despite new ways of communicating with constituents, Congress doesn’t seem to be listening.  Increasing the size of Congress would not change this phenomenon. Congress listens at the ballot box.  Citizens must become educated and engaged, and remember that as Janine so eloquently put in one of her op-eds, your vote is your voice.

As I encouraged in a recent essay, get to know your member of Congress.  Go to a town meeting and ask a question.  Write a letter, send an email, request a meeting in DC or your congressional district.  Visit with his or her staff. Research your U.S. Representative’s voting record.  You may be either pleasantly surprised, or have your worst suspicions confirmed.  But either way, you will be able to make an educated decision in November.

I am unable to conceive that the people of America, in their present temper, or under any circumstances which can speedily happen, will choose, and every second year repeat the choice of, sixty-five or a hundred men who would be disposed to form and pursue a scheme of tyranny or treachery.—Federalist No. 55

Tuesday, July 13th, 2010

In Federalist No. 66, Hamilton continues his defense of the Senate’s role as court of trial in the impeachment process.  The anti-federalists believed this role concentrated too much power in the hands of the Senate.  As we work our way through the Federalist Papers, it is fascinating to have the benefit of hindsight to explore how the structure built by the framers has played out.

In my personal journey through our 90 in 90, History Holds the Key to the Future, I have learned just how much I did not know!!

I have discovered the Senate.Gov website is a marvelous resource and repository of history. I consulted it for a list of Senate impeachment trials, and found this link:

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Senate_Impeachment_Role.htm#4

The above link contains an illuminating narrative of the Senate’s role in impeachment trials, and the major controversies that have arisen over the years, including the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”

In 1960 U.S. Rep Gerald Ford famously stated, “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

The link also contains the below listing of Senate Impeachment Trials.  Since 1789, the Senate has conducted 19 impeachment proceedings, with an even split of 7 acquittals and 7 convictions.  Three cases were dismissed.

Complete List of Senate Impeachment Trials
To date, the Senate has conducted formal impeachment proceedings 19 times, resulting in 7 acquittals, 7 convictions, and 3 dismissals.

William Blount, Senator

Date of Final Senate Action: January 11, 1799

Result:  expelled, charges dismissed

_______________________________

John Pickering, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action: March 12, 1804

Result: guilty, removed from office

_______________________________

Samuel Chase, Justice

Date of Final Senate Action:  March 1, 1805

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

James H. Peck, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  January 31, 1831

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

West H. Humphreys, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  June 26, 1862

Result:  guilty

_______________________________

Andrew Johnson, President

Date of Final Senate Action:  May 16/26, 1868

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

Mark H. Delahay, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  no action

Result:  resigned

_______________________________

William Belknap, Secretary of War

Date of Final Senate Action:  August 1, 1876

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

Charles Swayne, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  February 27, 1905

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

Robert Archbald, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  January 13, 1913

Result:  guilty, removed

_______________________________

George W. English, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  December 13, 1926

Result: resigned, charges dismissed

_______________________________

Harold Louderback, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  May 24, 1933

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

Halsted Ritter, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  April 17, 1936

Result:  guilty, removed from office

_______________________________

Harry E. Claiborne, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action: October 9, 1986

Result:  guilty, removed from office

_______________________________

Alcee Hastings, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  October 20, 1989

Result:  guilty, removed from office

_______________________________

Walter Nixon, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action:  November 3, 1989

Result:  guilty, removed from office

_______________________________

William J. Clinton, President

Date of Final Senate Action:  February 12, 1999

Result:  not guilty

_______________________________

Samuel B. Kent, Judge

Date of Final Senate Action: July 22, 2009

Result: resigned, case dismissed

_______________________________

G. Thomas Porteous, Jr., Judge

Date of Final Senate Action: case pending

I hope you all are learning as much as I am about the history of our country, the founding principles upon which our country is based and how these principles were applied by the framers in creating the structure of our Republic, through the United States Constitution!!

Thank you for joining us!!

Good night and God Bless,

Cathy Gillespie

Wednesday, July 28th, 2010

Greetings from Long Beach Island, New Jersey! The Gillespies are on our family vacation, and it has been a little hard to keep up with the essays, but I am determined to catch up!  In case you are wondering, the weather has been beautiful, the water warmer than usual, and we have been visiting with Ed’s extended family, his brothers and sisters and all the Greco cousins! There are at least 30 members of the Gillespie and Greco families here now, with the Moore cousins on the way, on Thursday!

The electoral college, the subject of Federalist No. 68, is one of the least understood components of the United States governmental structure.  I recommend this website for anyone who wants to brush up on the subject:  http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/

It is so important we all understand the electoral college and its importance to our republican form of government.  There has a been a recent movement to abolish the electoral college.  But another movement to persuade states to adopt proportional voting, instead of the traditional “winner-take-all” method, is also gaining momentum.

My daughter, Mollie Gillespie, writes about the advantage of states adopting a proportional system of allocating their electoral college votes on Juliette Turner’s new Kids’ Blog.  Click on this link and scroll down for Mollie’s essay:  https://constitutingamerica.org/juliette/?p=18

Check out Juliette’s Blog, and ask your kids to participate!  Juliette is reading the Making of America, and writing about it.  She is also encouraging kids to start Patriot’s Clubs!

Inspire our next generation to want to learn about the Constitution and our country’s founding principles! Forward out links to Juliette’s blog, and help your kids start Patriots’ clubs.  Take the time to teach your kids about the electoral college!  They find this subject fascinating, when it is explained to them.  Use the website   http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/ as a guide.

As we have said numerous times on these pages, knowledge is power! Let’s make sure our next generation is knowledgable, so they have the power to determine their future, and the future of our great country.

Good night and God Bless,

Cathy Gillespie

Sunday, August 1st, 2010

Greetings from Long Beach Island New Jersey!  What fun I’ve been having reading the Federalist Papers on the beach! And what interesting looks I get from passersby who take the time to glance at the cover of my book.

Federalist Papers 68-77 are especially interesting to me personally, as I have been fascinated by the Presidency for as long as I can remember. My first “political” experience was writing to President Nixon when I was in grade school, telling him I was praying for him during his struggles.  In Junior high, I begged my father to take me to SMU, in Dallas near where I grew up, to stand in a rope line in order to catch a glimpse of President Gerald Ford.  I voted for the first time in 1980, proudly casting my ballot for Ronald Reagan.  My first college course in political science at Texas A&M was taught by an expert in the Presidency, and although regretfully I can’t remember his name, I loved the course so much, I switched my major from business to political science that semester!

During the last decade, I got an even closer look at the Presidency through my husband’s work with President George W. Bush, and opportunities our family had to interact with him.  I had always admired President Bush’s steady leadership, and his unwavering commitment to certain values and principles, most notably keeping America safe. But getting to know him personally, I admired the way he carried the office of the Presidency.  When you are President, you are always President, whether relaxing in a small group or at public events.  President Bush respected the office, and lived every day in a way that could make our country proud.

Thank you to Professor Joerg Knipprath for your enlightening and thorough essays on Federalist Papers No. 69 (The Real Character of the Executive ) and 70 (The Executive Department Further Considered ).  The historical background you provide gives a useful prism from which to view these two papers that explore the President’s powers versus those of the British Monarch and the New York Governor, and the decision of the founders to have a unified executive, versus two or more heading that branch.

In Federalist No. 69 Publius makes a convincing argument that the United States Presidency, while powerful enough to head the country, is not as powerful as the King, or even the New York Governor (with the exception of the power to make treaties).  This is a fascinating comparison, and reveals the founders’ thought process on why the Presidency of our country is vested with certain powers and limited in others.

Some of the President’s powers originally outlined by the founders have waned, while others have increased. The President’s term in office still remains at four years, but is now limited to two terms by the twenty-second Amendment.

The President’s power to

“nominate, and, WITH THE ADVICE AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE, to appoint ambassadors and other public ministers, judges of the Supreme Court, and in general all officers of the United States established by law, and whose appointments are not otherwise provided for by the Constitution,”

has been expanded over the years by the President’s ability to create “Czar” positions.  These “Czar” positions sound eerily similar to the power Publius ascribes to the King, and denies the President having:

”The king of Great Britain is emphatically and truly styled the fountain of honor. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices.”

Time Magazine provides an interesting history of “Czars” in the United States at this link: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1925564,00.html

Time states the first Czar existed in President Woodrow Wilson’s cabinet during World War I, when Wilson appointed Bernard Baruch to head the War Industries board, and was known as the Industry Czar.  This must have been the proverbial camel’s nose under the tent, as the use of “Czars” has mushroomed from that point forward.

In Federalist No. 70, Publius defends the decision of the founders to have a single executive in the office of the Presidency head the executive branch, versus two or more individuals.  The benefits of a unified executive make an extraordinary amount of sense, especially in protecting the people’s liberty through transparency, and accountability.  As difficult as it was to pinpoint blame in Watergate, for example, imagine how much more difficult it might have been had there been two Chief Executives.  Professor Knipprath quotes Harry Truman’s famous line, “the buck stops here,” and that indeed is one of the most important attributes of the United States Presidency.

The founders’ grasp of history, as they detail the failures of past plural executives, such as the Achaens, or the dissensions between the Consuls and the military Tribunes in Roman history once again illuminates their arguments.  And their grasp of human nature is equally as profound –

“Wherever two or more persons are engaged in any common enterprise or pursuit, there is always danger of difference of opinion. If it be a public trust or office, in which they are clothed with equal dignity and authority, there is peculiar danger of personal emulation and even animosity.”

“Men often oppose a thing, merely because they have had no agency in planning it, or because it may have been planned by those whom they dislike. But if they have been consulted, and have happened to disapprove, opposition then becomes, in their estimation, an indispensable duty of self-love. They seem to think themselves bound in honor, and by all the motives of personal infallibility, to defeat the success of what has been resolved upon contrary to their sentiments. Men of upright, benevolent tempers have too many opportunities of remarking, with horror, to what desperate lengths this disposition is sometimes carried, and how often the great interests of society are sacrificed to the vanity, to the conceit, and to the obstinacy of individuals, who have credit enough to make their passions and their caprices interesting to mankind. Perhaps the question now before the public may, in its consequences, afford melancholy proofs of the effects of this despicable frailty, or rather detestable vice, in the human character.”

Our United States Presidency is a unique institution, crafted thoughtfully and skillfully by our founding fathers!

On to Federalist #71!

Good night and God Bless,

Cathy Gillespie

Tuesday, August 3rd, 2010