Strictly constructed or not?

Examining the Judge Sotomayor nomination is something that puts a unique light on the Republican Party:  just what does the Party stand for?

Paul Mirengoff, of Powerline fame, examines this question in a Washington Examiner article of 31 MAY 2009:

However, Senate Republicans still must decide how to deal with this nomination. And if they do more than merely go through the motions, we could see, if not drama, then at least fireworks. And, most importantly, some teaching moments.

The principles that should guide Republicans seem clear: They should apply the same approach to the Sotomayor nomination that the Democrats applied to the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito. This means, first, that they should question the nominee searchingly, albeit with far greater civility than the Democrats accorded Roberts and Alito.

It also means that Republican Senators should feel free to vote against Judge Sotomayor if they conclude they are likely to disagree with most of her decisions in controversial cases. It was on this basis alone that half of the Democratic Senators voted against Roberts, and 40 of 44 later voted against Alito.

At that time, Republicans objected mightily to the “politicization” of the confirmation process. They argued that the president deserves considerable deference when it comes to judicial nominees – the deference Republicans showed President Clinton when they voted overwhelmingly for his two liberal Supreme Court nominees, Justices Stephen Breyer and Ruth Ginsburg.

These were, and remain, excellent arguments. But it will not do to have one set of rules for confirming the nominees of Democratic presidents and another set for confirming Republican nominees. Thus, Republicans should grant no more deference to Obama’s selections than the Democrats did for Bush’s, but also no less. 

This raises the question: what are the grounds for disagreeing with her decisions?

It is a question that is answered by the concept of Strict Constructionism (Wikipedia link, YMMV) that is narrowly applied to the judiciary but, as a concept, is one that addresses the entire US Constitution.  It is often conflated with Originalism doctrine ( the concept that the Constitution has a fixed and knowable meaning at the time of its drafting) and Textualism (the concept that how a text reads is the guiding light, not legislative intent and background).  These all address a common theme, however, which is that of the Constitution being a designed instrument of society to help it restrict the worst abuses of individuals.  This comes under Mechanism design (Wikipedia link, YMMV) theory attributed to economics and game theory:

In economics and game theory, mechanism design is the study of designing rules of a game or system to achieve a specific outcome, even though each agent may be self-interested. This is done by setting up a structure in which agents have an incentive to behave according to the rules. The resulting mechanism is then said to implement the desired outcome. The strength of such a result depends on the solution concept used in the rules. It is related to metagame analysis, which uses the techniques of game theory to develop rules for a game.

To me the US Constitution is a part of this concept as it is a created document with specific outcome that will be yielded by a defined system (this is a topic I have examined before here and here plus a number of other works).  That outcome is equal application of the law and all citizens treated equally under the law.  As we are each agents within the system, we have our own self-interest (we call it Liberty) as our goal, but not all goals of those in the system seek the equal application that is given to us by the mechanism design.  As a solution, the US Constitution has fared rather well, putting the law above individuals so that a common sense interpretation of given text (Textualism) is often seen as the object of laws within the Constitutional framework.

Textualism removes intent from individual laws and puts intent at the highest design level, that of the Constitution, and then a faithful execution of all valid laws thereafter will yield the result of equal application of the law. 

Textualism as a concept is Originalism with strict adherence to the text of the mechanism design, while Originalism itself also looks at the concepts guiding the drafting of the mechanism.

Both run afoul, however, of agents within the system seeking other ends outside of the framework, namely equality of results, not of application, and to change the intent meaning from fixed to current culture oriented (the concept of a 'Living Constitution' with no fixed framework, and thus no fixed goals or ideals).  Additionally both have understood  backing via previous texts that look at how Nations are run, what their limits are, what their Sovereign powers are, and so on, which was Law of Nations both as a text and body of work (lower case).

Thus when you get to Strict Constructionism and limit it to purely legal areas and to put into play that fidelity to original meaning is a touchstone of judicial practice misses the point.  Legal practice and the Judiciary in a Constitutional system that preserves individual agent activity we call Liberty is the point of the entire SYSTEM of rules, not just the Judiciary.  That is how a mechanism design analyst sees the Constitution and Strict Constructionism:  the law is an object of equal application and getting to such law does NOT start at the Judiciary but the Legislative in our Constitutional system.

I am and have been a gamer throughout most of my late juvenile to adult life: I have played games of many wide ranging venues from simple interaction games (marbles) to low level/individual combat games to the broadest ranging, grand strategic games that I could find.  They all have rules associated with them that describe the game mechanism.  In the community of gamers there are those known as 'Rule Lawyers', who will quibble on every point of the text and who glory in every exception to every rule they can find, and those of 'Game Flow Practice' who seek to understand the overall flow of the mechanism design and ensure that the rules are faithful to the overall flow of the game.  Some games, like Star Fleet Battles, got so rule intensive that the '5 minute' meta-rule was put in place to limit Rule Lawyers from scouring the voluminous set of rules, addenda, fixes, qualifications and such that came out about every two months.  Believe me, 5 minutes is forever in a game that can last (without the look-ups) anywhere from 30 minutes to 6 hours.  Add in six or seven rule look-ups and you can spend more time looking AT the rules rather than PLAYING the game.

In the legal theory area, the Rule Lawyers are practicing Textualism and the Game Flow Practitioners are practicing Originalism.  At times you can come down to ad hoc judgments when the text can't be found and the overall flow can point to multiple interpretations, thus you find someone uninterested in the particular rule but who is knowledgeable in the game to then set the standard for that game.  Walking both the rules and their intent put me in that spot more times, in more games, than I can recall, with SFB just being the most frequent consultation as the rule updates were frequent and voluminous.  After the game the ACTUAL rule does have to be found and set straight for everyone as a similar circumstance is most likely to come up again, thus leading to private indexes of the rules to facilitate finding them.

That is the role of the Supreme Court in the Constitutional system: the last part of it.

By trying to limit Strict Constructionism ONLY to the Supreme Court, those pushing such doctrine are ignoring the entire structure of the US Constitution in which the Supreme Court is the last remedy for ill-made laws.

The first remedy is not to make them.

That is in the hands of the Legislative branch in the House and Senate.

By any of the three outlooks, Strict Constructionism, Textualism, Originalism, the place that is handed the first priority of law it the branch that makes it, thus any conservative following these views must review where such bad laws come from that no longer seek equal application of the law.

Any law that affords special protection, special rights or special privileges based on class, race, gender, ethnicity, religion or any other thing is contrary to each of these doctrines.  And yet many preaching them in the Senate (in particular but the House has its own coterie) is abridging their views to seek a form of non-allowed law based on other doctrines.

What is Social Security but a special mandate for those over a certain age to be forced to retire with government recompense?  That is all of the people providing a special privilege with remunerations to a group based on age.

What are subsidies but the provisioning of a small class of farmers, per subsidy, given special protection, often with monetary backing, based on a commodity.

All quota based systems or those that seek 'representative employment via population percentage' of race, class, gender, or ethnicity that is a special privilege that over-rides merit, skill and the worth of liberty to those in the protected class.  If the aim is to have color-blind law, where each individual has equal access, then equal judgment of skills and abilities will lead to unequal ends as that is the very definition of liberty: using ones skills and abilities to prosper by them in proportion to which you have them which is unequal across the entire population.

When laws are made to exempt or provide an amnesty to any group or class that has previously disobeyed the law, and the law itself is legal and supported, then that is a special exemption for illegal behavior.

The 'good' of each of these disregards the doctrines in question in each circumstance: by construction, by text and by original intent.  That is no 'good' but a debasement of the mechanism design which is the compact amongst all citizens that we agree to and invoke in Our name in the Preamble of the Constitution.  That social compact has its own structure and limitations, and they are extremely strict and followed not only in the body of the Constitution but as a construct across the entire Constitution itself.

First are limited objectives, with objectives derived from the people.  That is not only given in each Article but starting from the Preamble: objectives come first.

Second are limited means to achieve those objectives.  Again the Preamble serves as the limited objectives preface to the document and the document body is the means to achieve limited objectives.  This is recursively repeated at a lower level for each Article.

Third and last are rights to be utilized in the limited means for limited objectives.  Here the larger body with the Bill of Rights included clearly circumscribes government to only those direct rights handed to it and no others, that via the negative rights prescription on the federal government in Amendments IX and X, but also clear from the construction within the body of the document itself.

Thus the mechanism design is one of limited government given very few venues to work in, with extremely limited means to be used just within those venues and the bare rights necessary to exercise those means to achieve those objectives.  All other rights, means and objectives are retained by the States and the people.

If you say that you are a strict constructionist, textualist or originalist (or variation thereof) then the object of government restraint sees its last place in the Judiciary: it is the counter-weight to poor laws and abusive administration of same.  That is exactly 1/3 of the countervailing parts of government that keep each other in check via different domains of power so as to balance the internal system.  The entire system, as given, is balanced between the National, the States and the People, each of these have their own domains and powers to keep the others in check and balance.  That is the system you invoke with those doctrines, and stepping outside of those doctrines to do 'good' that is unequal law for equality of result should be anathema to you.

To do as you say requires actions that you seek to limit power, limit laws, limit the expanse of government so as to ensure the people, as a whole and as all of the people, do not have their liberty infringed upon by government.  Government is no help-mate, no hand maiden, no sugar daddy and not the place to get wealth and fame by chiseling it out of the common good that must address all of the people.  To do otherwise, to say otherwise, to be 'nice' or 'fair' when those doctrines require equality of application and accepting that results will be unequal is to invalidate your claim to upholding those views.

To mean what you say you must act in accordance with your words and mean them via the application of them to ensure the liberty and safety of all of the people, and not to expand the bounds and power of government as each time you do you are impoverishing the whole of the people.  To do otherwise is to dishonor your word, to perform dishonorable actions and to otherwise abuse the trust of those that place their faith in your words by NOT faithfully executing them.

This is a problem for the entire Republican Party.

There are those that are Traditionalists or who see that the mechanism design of the Constitution is our greatest safeguard against tyranny.  Many run on this as 'conservatives' but then do not follow through with their actions thus showing either ignorance, incompetence or pure dishonesty of viewpoint to win elections.

That is dishonorable.

Mind you, those that want no adherence to that construction which is the compact between all the people are dishonorable to start with: they do not abide by our common agreement and seek to abridge it openly.  They are OPENLY dishonorable, and make no bones about it.

I don't vote for either type.

One is honestly seeking tyrannical ends and the other is dishonestly seeking that.

Both don't want you to look at their records and hold them to account to our common agreement as a society when we put this system of government in place.

If you want a different system of government, then lobby for it, engage your fellow citizens and seek to bring a greater understanding for what you seek across all of society, in all its venues, and across all its differences.  That is honorable.  I may disagree with the proposed system, but taking the open, blunt and engaging way towards the greater end of civil society is an honorable activity no matter how ill the ends you seek are.

For those in the Halls of Power that say they wish to uphold the compact through the means of Strict Constructionism, Textualism or Originalism, and when you have done otherwise in your career, you are not seen in a good light.

You can swear you mean these things, but your actions belie your words.

If you are to make a stand against tyranny, then state clearly, unequivocally, completely, that you understand that you have done wrong in the past, that you have not upheld your word via your actions and that today you will never, ever, vote for abridging the mechanism designed by We the People and will work you god damned ass off in removing the extra parts of government which serve minimal 'good' ends and impoverish the people and infringe on liberty.

The place is not to take the ill-conceived William F. Buckley stance of standing athwart history yelling 'STOP!!'

That will get you bulldozed.

Do you mean your Oath of Office?

Have you read the text that you are to uphold?

Do you respect the wishes of all the people for equality under the law?

Or are you a Tyrant?

Now is the time to declare: No Further, Turn Back, or there will be Hell to pay.

No 'ifs'.

No 'ands'.

No 'buts'.

No more Mr. Nice Guy.

That day, is over.

Skidmarks where rhetoric meets the road

You may have heard about the 47 US Congressmen that refused to leave the House on 01 AUG 2008.  It was the teapotted tempest with rhetoric that sounds most impressive.  The topic was drilling for oil so that the US can find a path towards an energy future, instead of being mired in its present controlled by overseas oil groups and speculators beyond the realm of Congressional reach.  From the WSJ blog post by Patrick Yoest on this, the Democrats looked to crack down on speculators, but how they will go after foreign speculators is something they don't realize they cannot do:

“Republicans are too scared to go home to face their constituents after voting against bills to force Big Oil companies to use it or lose it, demand that the President free our oil from the government stockpile and crack down on speculators,” said Nadeam Elshami, a spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California.

Yes that 'government stockpile' is the strategic petroleum reserve that serves as an emergency stockpile of oil kept safe in underground storage areas that can allow the US Armed Forces to operate if we suddenly lose all access to foreign oil.  It is a defensive measure, not the government sitting on a vast reserve of oil for no reason at all.  And speculators are the people who try to figure out what the actual price of oil and other commodities will be, and then put their future bids on those prices.  They win if they are right in the direction and minimal amount of change, and wrong if they get the amount or direction wrong.  We have speculators in wheat, corn, pork bellies, oranges, cotton, soy beans, nickel, cadmium, zinc, lead, platinum, gold... yes the world is rife with them.  Imagine what a sudden run up in copper prices would do to the semi-conductor industry or, even worse, gallium used in the actual semi-conductors themselves.  Silica is damned cheap for the processing, and your beach and glass recycling center can gets you tons of it.  Something like uranium is a bit harder to come by, which is why sitting on the vast reserve that is untapped in VA is a bit strange.  Seventh largest deposit on the planet that is safer to mine than coal, and less toxic.  We once had uranium mining in the Grand Canyon and witness the desolate vastness of that region because of worries over it?

These other commodities have speculators, and if you forgot the gold run-up in the 1970's, you missed the dizzying bonanza of what people would pay based on speculation that soon crashed back almost to where it started.  That did start up a whole lot of gold miners, many organizations continuing operations to this day: industry was spurred on.  Cracking down on speculators who are not under your legal control, say those in London, Paris, Bahrain, India, China, Japan... these cretins Upon the Hill do realize that they can't do that without staging a major conflict to actually take these places over, right?

Right?

And where, exactly, were these INCUMBENTS when economic war was being waged against our domestic producers in the late 1990's run by speculators paid off by a tyrant to hurt US future oil production and bring more of the market under his control?  You remember those guys?  Hailing from the UK, France, Canada, Russia, Switzerland... Oil For Food?

Where in the hell was the worry about speculation on the LOW SIDE damaging this Nation?

Those that complain today about the US not even having the capacity to get deep sea drilling rigs in place forget that they are the cause of those same capabilities disappearing from our National capability via our private concerns.  You do remember the 1990's, right?  Blue dress with stain on it?  Rip-roaring economy due to the rise in tech stocks and the Internet Bubble, along with the Telecom Bubble?  Primed by low taxes in the 1980's, remember that?

A bunch of speculators?

Now for the words of those that were in the House on 01 AUG 2008, once the recess was called, this from the WSJ blog article above:

“How many of you remember the Boston Tea Party?” Republican Rep. John Shadegg of Arizona asked the raucous crowd. “This is the Boston Tea Party!”

Texas Republican Rep. John Culberson and Michigan Republican Rep. Pete Hoekstra sent play-by-play dispatches about the pep rally via Twitter, an online messaging service. Indiana Republican Rep. Mike Pence, a former radio talk show host, called in to one of his brethren, Rush Limbaugh, to apprise nationwide listeners of the details. Another Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady came to the House floor with suitcase in hand, saying that he’d walked out of his scheduled flight home to join the rally.

A veritable Boston Tea Party?  'No Taxation Without Representation'?  I could get behind that sort of thing, actually, but I have seen far too much go on Upon the Hill to put my money down at the start of anything there.  From the CQ Politics site, an article by Edward Epstein who covered this:

“Madame Speaker, Where art thou?’’ Ted Poe , R-Texas, shouted from the well of the House. “This room is vacant of most members of Congress. Where, oh where, has Congress gone?” he yelled to about a dozen other Republicans, tourists in the gallery, some House pages, and Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, the lone Democrat who witnessed the unusual proceeding.

This from John Gizzi at Human Events on what was going on there [bolding is mine here]:

The same lawmakers said they agreed with Pence that the President should call Congress back from its five-week respite to deal with the energy crisis. Rep. Wally Herger (R.-CA) told me outside the House floor that “We’re doing everything we can” to get President Bush to bring Congress back. As to the White House’s attitude on making this rare-but-constitutional step, Herger said, “I’d say that right now, it’s rising on his [Bush’s] agenda.”

Rep. Don Manzullo (R.Ill.) told me he would be willing to come back even though his August schedule is “packed.. . .I even have a trip to Alaska to see ANWR.”

Rep. John Carter (R.Tex.) said that the message of the angry lawmakers who kept speaking and refusing to adjourn was “the spontaneity—we all showed up on the floor [and said] ‘Give us our country back.’”

Perhaps the happiest lawmaker I spoke to today was Rep. Thad McCotter (R.-Mich.), who has long urged Republican to capture traditional conservative theory and unite with strong tactics based on issues. Using the language of the rock ‘n’roll guitarist that he sometimes is, McCotter described the day’s remarkable events as “Republican riff on Yippie Street Theater on Pelosi.”

What?  The Republicans stand for traditional conservative theory?

Since when?

I haven't seen much of that since the military was gutted in the 1990's, the government grew quite large, requiring tax cuts so that people had some money to invest, thus increasing the size of government in the 2000's, realizing that this standing up to tyrants business is not a low cost affair, wishing they hadn't gutted the military in the 1990's, bemoaning the base corruption of earmarks which they have been happily signing off upon for decades, and generally acting like a 'Democratic Lite' party, with much talk on taxes and not much action on doing any other damned thing except restricting the rights of Americans on the internet, in areas of political speech, acting like they have some say in areas wholly given to the States and the people, and generally taking high moral stances that their own members can't live up to.

Conservative Republicans?  Those who actually KEEP TO THEIR WORD?

You know, a basic conservative value of doing what you say you will do?

From Politico's Patrick O'Connor on the happenings:

Republicans shouted their remarks from the well of the House until Arizona Rep. John B. Shadegg fumbled with the public address system and finally found the correct access code allowing him to turn on the microphone.

When he did, members cheered.

In fact, members did a lot of cheering Friday.

They cheered when the lights came on. They cheered when the lights went off again. They even cheered when the crowd in the galleries applauded their remarks.

In between, they shouted, “Work! Work! Work!”

Hey! Cheering to get things working!  I mean, 'work' is a conservative value, right?  But maybe they are a bit at sea on this 'working' business.  Perhaps they don't have time to ponder their work on 4 day weekends and 5 week recesses.  Under the Republicans it was only 3 day weekends and 4 week recesses.  Such 'conservative values' this working business.  Why don't they just be 'progressive' and pare that down to a 1 day work week and a 51 week recess?

Mr. O'Connor then sums up the proceedings of what happened at the press conference:

During the press conference, at least three members announced their intent to stay in Washington — if not on the floor — until Pelosi brought lawmakers back from break to vote on an energy package. Pence even asked President Bush to command Congress to return to session.

But minutes later, this band of partisan pranksters went back to the floor, where Price told the crowd that the Republicans were wrapping up their protest to end an afternoon of rarities in the Capitol.

He and his band high-fived and exchanged hugs as they left the floor to chants of “USA! USA! USA!”

So three members staying in DC... I wish them luck, even with a powerless, silenced House.

If any of these people had those 'conservative values' and stuck to them for the last 20 years or so, they wouldn't have to stage a prank like this, now.  The members of the Boston Tea Party knew their lives were on the line and couldn't count on any outcome, save that they would make their actions known and why they were taken.  Even if they wound up six feet under or in Davy Jones' Locker.  Those men put their lives on the line to start a principled attack on a Nation that no longer respected them as citizens and deprived them of their rightful say in government.

'No Taxation Without Representation'

If they don't like Pelosi's Politboro, perhaps it is time they told their party they will do what is right with or without their party.  Because this Politboro has gotten a lot of help from their fellow members in their party who like 3 day work weeks and 5 week paid vacations.  To do *that* requires guts, dedication and much, much more work than has been done by lackluster members of the Emirate of Incumbistan, lo these many years stretching into decades.

The job is voluntary, no one pushed them to their seats.

It requires much from those that want these positions.

Long hours.

Long days.

Little if any vacation time.

Families missed.

The Nation put first.

Speaking your values.

Commitment to your values.

And working to bring those values to fruition.

Hard work.

Work.

Work.

Work.

The failings of the volunteers

The struggles continue on, year after long year, with no resolution in sight.

Veterans of many battles soldier on with few to come and relieve them.

Embattled on all sides, and unable to meet the heavy loads set to them, they fail at it, even as they are sent to the fight again and again. They volunteer for it, and the People fail to support them.

Is this the all volunteer Armed Forces in Iraq? No, this is a description of another all volunteer force... but let us say that it was the forces in Iraq and we realized we could not leave. What would you minister, just on the bland face of it?

Send in fresh troops and reinforcements, of course!

But if this force I describe in bitter battles is not the forces in Iraq, then who, exactly, are they?

To no surprise of readers here, it is one that we all know and have come to see as untrustworthy in America. This force of mostly veterans with too few new faces and too much work is, indeed, Congress.

Thanks to CQ in pointing to this piece in Politico on House is not a home.

The poor dears in the House have a 5 day work week!

Long schedules!

Too little time in their districts!

Ah, the river of crying has begun, has it not?

I have gone over the concept of a solution for this before, but I will pull out a bit from the folks more heavily pushing the 1:30,000 House concept. They have a lovely file doing long-term trend analysis of the incumbency problem of the US, and it has been in the realm of 90% return rate now for decades:

Courtesy: thirty-thousand.org
This is not a trend that bodes well for America, and, indeed, has pushed down voter turnout and depressed off-year elections on what should, at basis, be the fundamental underpinning of democracy: the House of Representatives.





The above taken from US Census datasets.
Presented in History is not inevitable
These are not things to put forward as 'those not interested not voting'. Indeed, that is a prescription to lose democracy at its base, from a population that is self-guiding and takes interest in their outlook and future. Consider, for a moment, an Anti-Federalist all of whom were committed to democracy, but were arguing the best form of democracy for the United States, Brutus No. 1:

"The magistrates in every government must be supported in the execution of the laws, either by an armed force, maintained at the public expence for that purpose; or by the people turning out to aid the magistrate upon his command, in case of resistance.

In despotic governments, as well as in all the monarchies of Europe, standing armies are kept up to execute the commands of the prince or the magistrate, and are employed for this purpose when occasion requires: But they have always proved the destruction of liberty, and [are] abhorrent to the spirit of a free republic. In England, where they depend upon the parliament for their annual support, they have always been complained of as oppressive and unconstitutional, and are seldom employed in executing of the laws; never except on extraordinary occasions, and then under the direction of a civil magistrate.

A free republic will never keep a standing army to execute its laws. It must depend upon the support of its citizens. But when a government is to receive its support from the aid of the citizens, it must be so constructed as to have the confidence, respect, and affection of the people." Men who, upon the call of the magistrate, offer themselves to execute the laws, are influenced to do it either by affection to the government, or from fear; where a standing army is at hand to punish offenders, every man is actuated by the latter principle, and therefore, when the magistrate calls, will obey: but, where this is not the case, the government must rest for its support upon the confidence and respect which the people have for their government and laws. The body of the people being attached, the government will always be sufficient to support and execute its laws, and to operate upon the fears of any faction which may be opposed to it, not only to prevent an opposition to the execution of the laws themselves, but also to compel the most of them to aid the magistrate; but the people will not be likely to have such confidence in their rulers, in a republic so extensive as the United States, as necessary for these purposes. The confidence which the people have in their rulers, in a free republic, arises from their knowing them, from their being responsible to them for their conduct, and from the power they have of displacing them when they misbehave: but in a republic of the extent of this continent, the people in general would be acquainted with very few of their rulers: the people at large would know little of their proceedings, and it would be extremely difficult to change them. The people in Georgia and New-Hampshire would not know one another’s mind, and therefore could not act in concert to enable them to effect a general change of representatives. The different parts of so extensive a country could not possibly be made acquainted with the conduct of their representatives, nor be informed of the reasons upon which measures were founded. The consequence will be, they will have no confidence in their legislature, suspect them of ambitious views, be jealous of every measure they adopt, and will not support the laws they pass. Hence the government will be nerveless and inefficient, and no way will be left to render it otherwise, but by establishing an armed force to execute the laws at the point of the bayonet — a government of all others the most to be dreaded."

The long-term stand of democracy is above that of form of government - it is active participation in deciding who shall represent you, as an individual, in government for your greater good and well-being. America re-affirms this outlook over a century later when President Theodore Roosevelt would address the Sorbonne in Paris, 23 APR 1910 via the Theodore Roosevelt website:

Today I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we a great citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as ours - an effort to realize its full sense government by, of, and for the people - represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with great responsibilities alike for good and evil. The success or republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure of despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. Under other forms of government, under the rule of one man or very few men, the quality of the leaders is all-important. If, under such governments, the quality of the rulers is high enough, then the nations for generations lead a brilliant career, and add substantially to the sum of world achievement, no matter how low the quality of average citizen; because the average citizen is an almost negligible quantity in working out the final results of that type of national greatness. But with you and us the case is different. With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average women, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional cries which call for heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average cannot be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

Being a citizen in a democracy is not just a privilege, it is a duty to the upholding of society. As democracies rest upon the consent of the governed, when those that are governed no longer exercise their right to choose government, it is not only the government but the Nation that suffers in lack of legitimacy. We no longer teach upholding democracy and citizenship as a duty, and so we now lack dutiful citizens that support government and Nation.

We have a tired, worn out set of politicians in a moribund institution that was size delimited in 1913 by Congress. That happened in a 10 year flurry of changes on the basis of democracy in America that would alter the relationship of how Federal Government to the American People. Those changes, however, did not press forward the concept of democracy and have, instead, eroded it deeply. By not having commitment to democracy, America no longer generates leaders that understand democracy or that can adequately express any vision for a future of democracy in America or the world. Because of that, we are at a point where the only institution of the Federal Government that is *trusted* is the Armed Forces. And those same Armed Forces do their job while being harried at all sides not only by those firing bullets and bombs from abroad, but by the media and punditry at home.

This is not a stable mix for any democracy. Only the deep seated view of democracy and adhering to civilian control over the military that was put forward by General Washington serves as the deepest check to worse problems. Those same problems are being generated by veterans fighting not just the last war, but two or three wars back, now... in Washington, DC.

It is time to recall these veterans and send reinforcements, and tell Congress it is time to return popular representative democracy to Washington. I am sure it will cause turmoil, of that there is no doubt.

Not doing so will place the republic in even worse danger as government becomes distrusted and hated, the military loved and democracy diminished.

Give the House of Representatives back to the People so we may be heard in diversity and cacophony.

The Sea of Troubles we are in as seen from the Founding Generation

The following is cross-posted from The Jacksonian Party.

The following is a party outlook paper of The Jacksonian Party.


The idea that the federal government is the backstop of rights for the citizenry is a prime consideration for the generation that fought the Revolution and then saw the Confederation crumble under the weight of debt from that war. A war won to secure liberties was eroding them, by imprisoning the poor land owner, confiscating lands and concentrating power in the population centers of the States. The concept of a Republic to replace the Confederation was seen as a possible solution, but even then its track record in history was not a good one. The ideal of a Republic from the time of Plato onwards was just that: an ideal. While Atlantis may have had one, the remains of that civilization on Crete and the island of Santorini point out that it left no record of its prosperous form of government. Word of mouth kept it alive to be written down centuries later as an ideal government form, that somehow worked before it was extinguished from this earth by a volcanic eruption.

From that time onwards various forms of Republic had been tried by those at wits end as what to do so as to get accountable government. That failed time and again, and the Founders were seen treading into waters where the explosive mix of democracy and Republic would spell ill times for the future. To combat that the drafters of the Constitution did their best to ensure that some of the ills of past Republics and democracies were addressed. In the modern era we assume that this argument was superior as the unstable form of government created has lasted for over two centuries. That is, however, meager time to actually test this form of government and many pointed out the long-term ills seen from previous attempts:

Republics are divided into democratics, and aristocratics. The establishment of an order of nobles, in whom should reside all the power of the state, would be an aristocratic republic. Such has been for five centuries the government of Venice, in which all the energies of government, as well as of individuals, have been cramped by a distressing jealousy that the rulers have of each other. There is nothing of that generous, manly confidence that we see in the democratic republics of our own country. It is a government of force. attended with perpetual fear of that force. In Great-Britain, since the lengthening of parliaments, all our accounts agree, that their elections are a continued scene of bribery, riot and tumult; often a scene of murder. These are the consequences of choosing seldom, and for extensive districts. When the term is short, nobody will give an high price for a seat. It is an insufficient answer to these objections to say, that there is no power of government but may sometimes be applied to bad purposes. Such a power is of no value unless it is applied to a bad purpose. It ought always to remain with the people. The framers of our state constitution were so jealous of this right, that they fixed the days for election, meeting and dissolving of the legislature, and of the other officers of government.

That from Agrippa No. 15, by Agrippa on 22 JAN 1788. Republics, apparently, were known to have problems especially when the right to decide when to set elections was set by the government itself. Do note that the problems seen by previous Republics include such things as rule by force from the government in aristocracies and the outright corruption, bribery and mayhem that results from large districts in which voting is rare. The Constitution does, as Agrippa points out, try to address these problems, but is seen deficient in the actual powers given to the government:

I know it is a common complaint, that Congress want more power. But where is the limited government that does not want it? Ambition is in a governour what money is to a misar—he can never accumulate enough. But it is as true in politicks as in morals, he that is unfaithful in little, will be unfaithful also in much. He who will not exercise the powers he has, will never property use more extensive powers. The framing entirely new systems, is a work that requires vast attention; and it is much easier to guard an old one. It is infinitely better to reject one that is unfriendly to liberty, and rest for a while satisfied with a system that is in some measure defective, than to set up a government unfriendly to the rights of states, and to the rights of individuals—one that is undefined in its powers and operations. Such is the government proposed by the federal convention, and such, we trust, you will have the wisdom and firmness to reject.

Yes, this is the ringing endorsement of the Jeffersonian concept of suffering the ills of government until they are no longer tolerable showing up again 12 years after being put down in the Declaration of Independence. And the reason for that is a weak government between the States was seen preferable to a strong one that would seek to secure more power for itself over time. That concept of Ambition being to Governors as money is to misers - never having enough - rings true today as it did then. Those who seek ambitious ends for themselves seek to place ever more power in government and remove it from the People, who are the source of such power and legitimacy of government.

When that ambition is given into, and more power is vested in the government, it tends, as seen by Agrippa, to not be able to actually exercise nor utilize its powers well. Adding more power to government actually is seen as making it worse, not better and that major complaint shows up now, over 200 years later, with a Federal system that is decaying from the ambitions of those in the House of Representatives and the Senate to actually sequester power from the Executive and Judicial and place it in the Legislative.

The concept of 'representative democracy' is to have those elected actually known to those doing the voting for them. An ability to have a representative that does, indeed, represent your ideas and ideals and be held accountable for such are paramount. Brutus, in Brutus No. 4 on 29 NOV 1787, looks at this problem as it pertains to government:

In order for the people safely to repose themselves on their rulers, they should not only be of their own choice. But it is requisite they should be acquainted with their abilities to manage the public concerns with wisdom. They should be satisfied that those who represent them are men of integrity, who will pursue the good of the community with fidelity; and will not be turned aside from their duty by private interest, or corrupted by undue influence; and that they will have such a zeal for the good of those whom they represent, as to excite them to be diligent in their service; but it is impossible the people of the United States should have sufficient knowledge of their representatives, when the numbers are so few, to acquire any rational satisfaction on either of these points. The people of this state will have very little acquaintance with those who may be chosen to represent them; a great part of them will, probably, not know the characters of their own members, much less that of a majority of those who will compose the foederal assembly; they will consist of men, whose names they have never heard, and whose talents and regard for the public good, they are total strangers to; and they will have no persons so immediately of their choice so near them, of their neighbours and of their own rank in life, that they can feel themselves secure in trusting their interests in their hands. The representatives of the people cannot, as they now do, after they have passed laws, mix with the people, and explain to them the motives which induced the adoption of any measure, point out its utility, and remove objections or silence unreasonable clamours against it. — The number will be so small that but a very few of the most sensible and respectable yeomanry of the country can ever have any knowledge of them: being so far removed from the people, their station will be elevated and important, and they will be considered as ambitious and designing. They will not be viewed by the people as part of themselves, but as a body distinct from them, and having separate interests to pursue; the consequence will be, that a perpetual jealousy will exist in the minds of the people against them; their conduct will be narrowly watched; their measures scrutinized; and their laws opposed, evaded, or reluctantly obeyed. This is natural, and exactly corresponds with the conduct of individuals towards those in whose hands they intrust important concerns. If the person confided in, be a neighbour with whom his employer is intimately acquainted, whose talents, he knows, are sufficient to manage the business with which he is charged, his honesty and fidelity unsuspected, and his friendship and zeal for the service of this principal unquestionable, he will commit his affairs into his hands with unreserved confidence, and feel himself secure; all the transactions of the agent will meet with the most favorable construction, and the measures he takes will give satisfaction. But, if the person employed be a stranger, whom he has never seen, and whose character for ability or fidelity he cannot fully learn — If he is constrained to choose him, because it was not in his power to procure one more agreeable to his wishes, he will trust him with caution, and be suspicious of all his conduct.

In this view representative democracy that becomes distant from the individual voter and citizen is seen as less representative for those doing the voting. Complex ideas and ideals are not well represented with those that have huge voting population base, and their ability to actually speak out in a meaningful way for any majority of voters is hindered due to differences between the individual representative and the individuals they are representing. In the modern day House of Representatives the members represent, on average, 550,000 individuals and the ability of such representatives to be known for their wisdom and good deeds in their community is lessened and the ability for ambition to grow for any individual representative is high: by means of utilizing public goods and funds for their own purposes, members of the House have the ability to assure that their meager 'base' is funded. Laws passed from which Congress, additionally, exempts itself puts further distance from those that actually are the subjects of the laws involved, such as the labor laws instituted for the rest of the Nation or not putting forth the idea that 'freedom of information' should extend to the Legislative branch, also.

What is garnered from that are laws that the People will not obey in substance and often not in form. Taxation is rife for 'cheating' and seeing the unfairness of the tax code weighted, in theory, to have rich individuals pay more while companies and many of these rich individuals pay nothing. They are, even with that, the greatest source of income for the Federal government, but the idea of special tax law for one class over another distances the individuals, as a whole, from the common government. That devolves to the point where the power vested in the Federal government is not utilized to actually uphold its duties, say on immigration and naturalization or properly scoping out the size and needs of the Armed Forces of the Union, that the population loses confidence in these distant legislators who, apparently, now only legislate for themselves, their cronies and their vested 'special interests' that support the with kick-backs from Federal grants and contracts. Actual, simple things like identifying deficient bridges and repairing or replacing them are put secondary to funding such things as bike paths, State roads and even gardens for private institutions. The result, as stated by Brutus is painfully clear:

If then this government should not derive support from the good will of the people, it must be executed by force, or not executed at all; either case would lead to the total destruction of liberty.

Such government as this destroys liberty. If force be used it is a direct change from rule via the People to rule via the Strong. And if neglected the Laws of the Land fall into disrepute and the society and Nation slide into disunion, disharmony and destruction. Either is the death of Liberty which depends upon the structure of government and its acceptance and adherence by the People in a representative democracy. When that factor of personal knowledge and accountability is put at risk, Liberty is put at risk over time by the distancing of those that govern from those being governed.

That power of taxation and the influence of the wealthy and distant is seen as a major contributing factor to the destruction of representative democracy. In Cato No. 6 by Cato on 13 DEC 1787, the following passage is seen after speaking on the ills that taxation will not be able to address:

In what manner then will you be eased, if the expences of government are to be raised solely out of the commerce of this country; do you not readily apprehend the fallacy of this argument. But government will find, that to press so heavily on commerce will not do, and therefore must have recourse to other objects; these will be a capitation or poll-tax, window lights, &c. &c. And a long train of impositions which their ingenuity will suggest; but will you submit to be numbered like the slaves of an arbitrary despot; and what will be your reflections when the tax-master thunders at your door for the duty on that light which is the bounty of heaven. It will be the policy of the great landholders who will chiefly compose this senate, and perhaps a majority of this house of representatives, to keep their lands free from taxes; and this is confirmed by the failure of every attempt to lay a land-tax in this state; hence recourse must and will be had to the sources I mentioned before. The burdens on you will be insupportable—your complaints will be inefficacious—this will beget public disturbances, and I will venture to predict, without the spirit of prophecy, that you and the government, if it is adopted, will one day be at issue on this point. The force of government will be exerted, this will call for an increase of revenue, and will add fuel to the fire. The result will be, that either you will revolve to some other form, or that government will give peace to the country, by destroying the opposition. If government therefore can, notwithstanding every opposition, raise a revenue on such things as are odious and burdensome to you, they can do any thing.

Those that control the ability to tax will not know the bounds of restraint only of their ambitions, and those lead from the lightest of overall taxation to increased taxation on anything to raise revenue. Yes, the Federal government has gone much, much further than tariffs to: income taxation, tax on alcoholic beverages, tax on gasoline, tax on cigarettes. Any Federal government that can tax cigarettes can tax anything it wishes. By being able to win extensions of the 'interstate commerce clause' to have say over purely intra-state (within a single State) as seen in the recent Gonzolez v. Raich decision, then anything can be considered as 'having an impact on interstate commerce' be it legal or illegal, as the Raich decision was on ILLEGAL sales tracked by NO ONE. That is a bit of that folks not complying with laws bit seen by Brutus.

Purely this is abuse of power and seeking its extension by the Legislative branch and being agreed to by the Judicial branch and enacted due to the Executive prosecuting such laws. In theory the stated ability of Congress is de-limited to interstate commerce ONLY as no other power is granted to it by the People. The Executive by carrying out such law is complicit in agreeing to it and enforcing it and the Judicial is putting its seal of approval on breaking with the stated authority given to Congress and adding to it in a way strictly against the Congressional mandate from the People. Any government that can use any activity, legal or illegal, as an excuse to make law down to the lowest level within States due to 'commerce based activity' can legislate on anything it desires under that concept. That is a failing by all three branches in the modern era to actually just uphold the limits placed upon government by the People. I assume that yard sales will fall under the purview of this next. Or children swapping trading cards. All has value in commerce and, therefore, all can be taxed by the Federal government.

Now, not all of the Anti-Federalists were reasoned folks, and a few of them became quite immoderate and florid in their writing against the proposed Constitution and its backers. Yet, even in that floridness and vituperation, some sense of what can be lost and why can be garnered, as seen in Centinal No. 8 by Centinel on 29 DEC 1787:

But as it is by comparison only that men estimate the value of any good, they are not sensible of the worth of those blessings they enjoy, until they are deprived of them; hence from ignorance of the horrors of slavery, nations, that have been in possession of that rarest of blessings, liberty, have so easily parted with it: when groaning under the yoke of tyranny what perils would they not encounter, what consideration would they not give to regain the inestimable jewel they had lost; but the jealousy of despotism guards every avenue to freedom, and confirms its empire at the expence of the devoted people, whose property is made instrumental to their misery, for the rapacious hand of power seizes upon every thing; dispair presently succeeds, and every noble faculty of the mind being depressed, and all motive to industry and exertion being removed, the people are adapted to the nature of government, and drag out a listless existence.

If ever America should be enslaved it will be from this cause, that they are not sensible of their peculiar felicity, that they are not aware of the value of the heavenly boon, committed to their care and protection, and if the present conspiracy fails, as I have no doubt will be the case, it will be the triumph of reason and philosophy, as these United States have never felt the iron hand of power, or experienced the wretchedness of slavery.

That reads just like a modern day blog in its essence, although the command of the language is far, far higher than anyone in the modern era can, apparently, muster to express themselves. As one guesses the reason I concentrate on the Anti-Federalists is that they had some insights into how democracy and Republics can fail, and Centinal does point out that the blessings of liberty can become so commonplace that we forget it is special to us. We have seen historical examples of this in Germany, Italy, Russia, Spain... and many Nations of the 'third world' or lesser industrial powers in S. America, Africa and Asia. Rwanda, Somalia, Argentina, Panama, Laos, Cambodia, all attest to the failures of securing liberty against those that would seize power from a decaying system.

In Federal Farmer No. 8 put out on 03 JAN 1788, we get a view of the systemic problems of governmental systems that cannot adhere to common rule and the problems seen in Britain and Rome are compared and contrasted through the lens of historical analysis. Not bad for 1788! The piece concludes with this view of what happens when governmental systems decay in a representative democracy of free people:

De Lo[l]me well observes, that in societies, laws which were to be equal to all are soon warped to the private interests of the administrators, and made to defend the usurpations of a few. The English, who had tasted the sweets of equal laws, were aware of this, and though they restored their king, they carefully delegated to parliament the advocates of freedom.

I have often lately heard it observed, that it will do very well for a people to make a constitution, and ordain, that at stated periods they will chuse, in a certain manner, a first magistrate, a given number of senators and representatives, and let them have all power to do as they please. This doctrine, however it may do for a small republic, as Connecticut, for instance, where the people may chuse so many senators and representatives to assemble in the legislature, in an eminent degree, the interests, the views, feelings, and genuine sentiments of the people themselves, can never be admitted in an extensive country; and when this power is lodged in the hands of a few, not to limit the few, is but one step short of giving absolute power to one man — in a numerous representation the abuse of power is a common injury, and has no temptation — among the few, the abuse of power may often operate to the private emolument of those who abuse it.

When legitimacy is lost, either through outright corruption, usurpation of power or distancing of government from the People, then the government itself decays until conditions invite despotic rule. The concentration of power can happen not only by design but by neglect: the lack of oversight through incompetence or just not seeing something as a long-term problem. Thusly the concentration of power in the United States happens whenever fewer individuals represent more and more people. The President is chosen to lead the Nation in full, and the Senators to represent the interest of each State, but the House is the body meant to represent the will of the People and the neglect of actually having individuals that are respected and known in their communities by the majority of individuals creates a problem for representative democracy. By setting the size of the House by Public Law, the Nation has grown and each individual represents more and more individuals but has less and less accountability in the system. The Senate was created to give a stable outlook for all of the States and to quell the tumultuous view of the People with more reasoned guidance. Today that 'elder statesman' role is gone as the turnover in the House is so minuscule that there is no 'tumult' of opinion to quell. While the Nation changes to adjust to modern times as individuals, the tools of government lag worst in what should be the most representative body of the land: the House of Representatives.

When our most recent Congress came in with majority approval ratings after the election and has dropped month by month so that any approval is now near the margin of error of measurement for ZERO, one no longer has representative democracy with the consent of the governed. John Lansing, in his address to the New York Ratifying Convention on 24 JUN 1788, address the problem of what to do with unaccountable Senators and Representatives as he saw this as a prime concern when this National government:

Sir, it is true there have been no instances of the success of corruption under the old Confederation; and may not this be attributed to the power of recall, which has existed from its first formation? It has operated effectually, though silently. It has never been exercised, because no great occasion has offered. The power has by no means proved a discouragement to individuals, in serving their country. A seat in Congress has always been considered a distinguished honor, and a favorite object of ambition: I believe no public station has been sought with more avidity. If this power has existed for so many years, and through so many scenes of difficulty and danger, without being exerted, may it not be rationally presumed that it never will be put in execution, unless the indispensable interest of a state shall require it? I am perfectly convinced that, in many emergencies, mutual concessions are necessary and proper; and that, in some instances, the smaller interests of the states should be sacrificed to great national objects. But when a delegate makes such sacrifices as tend to political destruction, or to reduce sovereignty to subordination, his state ought to have the power of defeating his design, and reverting to the people. It is observed, that the appropriation of money is not in the power of the Senate alone; but, sir, the exercise of certain powers, which constitutionally and necessarily involve the disposal of money, belongs to the Senate: they have, therefore, a right of disposing of the property of the United States. If the Senate declare war, the lower house must furnish the supplies.

It is further objected to this amendment, that it will restrain the people from choosing those who are most deserving of their suffrages, and will thus be an abridgment of their rights. I cannot suppose this last inference naturally follows. The rights of the people will be best supported by checking, at a certain point, the current of popular favor, and preventing the establishment of an influence which may leave to elections little more than the form of freedom. The Constitution of this state says, that no man shall hold the office of sheriff or coroner beyond a certain period. Does any one imagine that the rights of the people are infringed by this provision? The gentlemen, in their reasoning on the subject of corruption, seem to set aside experience, and to consider the Americans as exempt from the common vices and frailties of human nature. It is unnecessary to particularize the numerous ways in which public bodies are accessible to corruption. The poison always finds a channel, and never wants an object. Scruples would be impertinent, arguments would be in vain, checks would be useless, if we were certain our rulers would be good men; but for the virtuous government is not instituted: its object is to restrain and punish vice; and all free constitutions are formed with two views——to deter the governed from crime, and the governors from tyranny.

That old concept of recall is embraced and enshrined as pertinent not only to the Confederation but to the Republic. The States would not agree to give up so fundamental a right as that so as to keep National government in check. Not *just* term limits for certain offices in the State Constitution are cited, but actual recall as a foundation not only for New York State but the Confederation. The seldom used right is one that indicates government is going far off track and the States under the Confederation had this power and its continuation via removing the legitimacy of the ballot by the State for its Senators and Representatives remains a primary right of the State as a negative right. It is asserted only to negate attempts by its elected officials to change the power structure in favor of the Federal government or just to the individuals involved. With the legitimacy withdrawn by the State, and the recall issued, such individuals are brought out of power by the State to ensure the Sovereignty of the States and the People within the Union.

No one person can catalog all possible ways a government can fail and revert to tyrannical rule, both Federalist and Anti-Federalist point out the ways it can fail. The Federalist side put safeguards into the Constitution via divided government, accountability of each branch to the other two and by putting in the ability of the States and the People to put the Federal government in check via the legitimacy of the vote and the power of the purse. Each of those pieces were designed, by the Federalists to answer the problems of the Anti-Federalists and to ensure that democracy in a representative form for the Republic would continue onwards. These were vital and necessary safeguards to protect against concentration of power, the distancing of those governing from the People and the ability to extract funds from anything that the Citizenry would do. Without those things government would trend, by action or neglect, to decay, disorder and then the rise of tyranny either by a single individual or by a group seeking to assert rulership over this disorderly system.

In a short span of 10 years these safeguards were all but removed from the Constitution by Amendment, with only the old right of recall still left in place. I looked at those years previously in a an article and looked at the social and societal repercussions of those actions taken to make government 'more active' and 'efficient' in the affairs of the Nation. That change in society because of those changes have moved away from the democratic ideals represented by the Constitution at the Founding. Direct election of Senators by the People removed the intermediary of State Sovereignty to keep the Federal system in check. Adding an Amendment so as to allow direct taxation of the People by the Federal government beyond mere commerce, but to go directly to individual wealth removed the distributed power of the purse held by the States previously, and, additionally, the Federal government passed into Public Law a set size for the House because it would be 'unmanageable' at 600 or so members by 1940.

Each of these basic and fundamental safeguards installed by the Founders into the Constitution so as to make it very, very difficult to undermine or corrode National governance has since led to a point in time where Congressional approval by the People of the United States has fallen to the level of noise in the polls. Congress has become so isolated that its support is no longer something that can be measured with accuracy, because that confidence in it has evaporated almost completely. The Federalist Hamiltonian solution of what to DO when you get to such a point is clear, and he wrote on that in Federalist No. 26 on 22 DEC 1787 about the abuses of Congress by action, but the same problem can be found by inaction as the Anti-Federalists point out in a section I do tend to cite quite often:

"The legislature of the United States will be obliged by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not at liberty to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party in different degrees must be expected to infect all political bodies there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community require time to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable that every man the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person."

This goes not *just* for the armed forces, but whenever Congress via its actions of inactions drifts from representative democracy and into authoritarian governing. A scheme to divert representative democracy need not be by armed force: neglect and self-serving politicians can achieve the removal of legitimacy by sheer inaction and unwillingness to keep an accountable system in place. By removing the power of the purse from the States the Federal system now enjoys separate Sovereignty to do as it pleases without regard to State input. Funds need no longer be spent in the State's interest and, instead, the interest of the few in the Legislative can corrode the accountability structure to have National funds serve private needs.

We as a People were convinced that removing these safeguards in that era of 1909-19 would get the Nation 'better government' that was 'more active' in our daily lives. The counter to that is that any government that can reach that far down from the National to the indivdual without accountability due to removing State input and diluting the power of individuals and communities is then unaccountable to the People. The United States has badly erred in the last century, and while great progress in technology and the arts and sciences have come about, government has become unaccountable and untrustworthy in the extreme. As a People we will suffer ills of government until they are no longer sustainable, and then the thoughts of Jefferson come to the forefront. This system *was* accountable at one time: messy, lethargic, poorly funded and not too active in the lives of the People.

That is something known as: limited government.

Let us work together to return to it and accountability of such government to the States and the People.

Our very Liberty depends upon in it.

The Warnings of the Founding Generation

From the time of the Founding of the Nation there were those who worried about Federal Government and what would become of it. Their views were many but some of the basic outlines of *why* Federal governing needs strong checks and could be seen as wrong-headed do have merit in this modern era. We can see some of the most pertinent of these criticisms in the Yates and Lansing letter to the New York Governor. I will excerpt some sections to highlight these, and some other criticisms of the Constitution:

LETTER FROM THE HON. ROBERT YATES AND THE
HON. JOHN LANSING, JUN., ESQUIRES,
TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW YORK;
CONTAINING THEIR REASONS FOR NOT SUBSCRIBING
TO THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION
[..]

Exclusive of our objections originating from the want of power, we entertained an opinion that a general government, however guarded by declarations of rights, or cautionary provisions, must unavoidably, in a short time, be productive of the destruction of the civil liberty of such citizens who could be effectually coerced by it, by reason of the extensive territory of the United States, the dispersed situation of its inhabitants, and the insuperable difficulty of controlling or counteracting the views of a set of men (however unconstitutional and oppressive their acts might be) possessed of all the powers of government, and who, from their remoteness from their constituents, and necessary permanency of office, could not be supposed to be uniformly actuated by an attention to their welfare and happiness; that, however wise and energetic the principles of the general government might be, the extremities of the United States could not be kept in due submission and obedience to its laws, at the distance of many hundred miles from the seat of government; that, if the general legislature was composed of so numerous a body of men as to represent the interests of all the inhabitants of the United States, in the usual and true ideas of representation, the expense of supporting it would become intolerably burdensome; and that, if a few only were vested with a power of legislation, the interests of a great majority of the inhabitants of the United States must necessarily be unknown; or, if known, even in the first stages of the operations of the new government, unattended to.

All bolding is mine throughout, of course!

Yates and Lansing thus put forth that Federal Government would become remote from the People, insulate itself *from* the People, put itself into perpetuity of power as individuals, and then set forth laws contrary to the Will of the People. By using the powers vested in it such Federal Government, no matter how tight the safeguards and guarantees, would drift from the outlooks of the People and secure only the outlooks of itself.

We have seen this over the period from 1787 to present via some few methods, but the Progressive Era of the late 19th and early 20th century were capstoned by a decade that 'reformed' the Federal Government so as to make it 'manageable' and easier to operate. In one decade the outlook of what the United States had as limitations upon the Federal Government changed in distinct ways. I look at that ten year period with this article and will summarize the main points of entry of it:

• The Harrison Act to regulate the use of narcotics was, itself, a capstone to an anti-drug movement by religions to combat opium use and the trade of it in the Orient, mostly China, but the trade and its piracies stretched far out from there to reach even Europe and America. In that period of 1909-14 the very first regulation of what individuals inside the United States could actually put into their bodies was formed, based on the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. This went beyond the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, which requires the labeling of what is actually IN those things Americans are using. Starting at mere tax stamps, which would then not be issued, that power has grown to include many, many medications that go far beyond narcotics. This outlook became the outlook to form up such organizations as the Drug Enforcement Agency and its powers are based solely upon that idealistic outlook of the Nation knowing better than its Citizens what Citizens may or may not do with their bodies.


• In 1909 Amendment XVI to the US Constitution changed the ability of Federal Government to directly tax individuals in the Union in disproportionate fashion. This had changed the funding basis for the United States from one resting upon State collection of funds and the use of tariffs to that of directly using the power of taxation of the People without intermediary. This moved the US off of its traditional ability to hold Federal Government accountable via funding from the States and removed that as a check and balance against Federal power.


• Amendment XVII which would also be ratified in 1913 which would place the direct election of Senators to that of the People of the States and *not* the Government of the States. Up to that point many States would *not* send Senators to the US Congress, either by oversight or intent, which was seen as crippling that body by making it difficult to actually hold it in session. This was the traditional way the States had to express their dissatisfaction with Federal Government and served as a direct reflection of how much power the Federal Government should have based on State outlook.


• In 1911 would come Public Law 62-5 which would go into effect in 1913 and limit the size of the House of Representatives. The House had previously served in proportion to population and would increase in size as population increased. At a number of times that proportion changed, via law, but the idea of an open-ended House was always kept so that the Will of the People could be reflected by the changing size of the population itself. With this limitation came the slow marginalization of the People as the ratio between Representative to the People changed ever upwards and the two parties formalized their control of districts so that seats would rarely pass between the parties in a way to effect their power structure.


• Amendment XVIII for the Prohibition of Alcohol in 1919 would be the largest attempt to directly control the People of the United States based on moralistic outlooks and would meet with long-term failure and repeal. That was not done before the rise of organized crime which had developed to meet the needs of the People for alcohol and as since put in place organized crime as a long-term, perennial threat to liberty, freedom and the rule of law within the United States and has developed that illiberal capability on a global basis. While the oil companies would compete to become a global business in this same period, they would often find that the entire set of organized crime from Europe to the Far East was there before them and represented the first true estimate of the financial power of the United States.
  
• President Woodrow Wilson would move the traditional War outlook of the United States and the entirety of Western Civilization via his outlooks for US entry into World War I. He promulgated two ideas and looked for one outcome and would get NONE of them right:
  
  
  
  1. His first idea was that trade was more freeing, over time, than any of the effects of warfare and that the United States should NOT confront the entire set of allies to Germany on a far-reaching basis. This view was particularly put to the Ottoman Empire, which was committing genocide of the Armenians which was being reported to the West by news organizations, church groups and other humanitarian groups. Ex-President Roosevelt had put forth from Congress that the United States by not taking part fully in the War against *all* of the enemies of France and Britain would then have little to no say in the peace that followed which would be set by those two States and their outlook for Colonial Empires.
  
  
  2. His second idea was that international organizations would serve as a means and method to allow Nations to work out differences via a Third Body. This concept which was embodied by the League of Nations and, after the failure of that, the United Nations would put forth that somehow joining all Nations together to discuss differences would yield positive results. The 'scourge of war' however, was not removed by this and, in point of fact, made even more pernicious and endemic amongst smaller Nations that saw no need nor want of 'help' from larger Nations unless something could be gotten from those larger Nations for doing so. From this rose the modern castigation of the West, in particular, as holding some forms of democracy and liberty and freedom of individuals forward, the enemies of that liberal tradition did NOT do so and used such organizations to put forward totalitarian excoriations of these larger powers.
  
  
  3. His third outlook would be doomed by the first: to align the Middle East and the Balkans to States that adhered more properly to populations that had ethnicity and background in common. Here the Predictions by ex-President Roosevelt proved to be correct and the Western Allies did not see the US as a full participant in the War and while critical, its limited role did not gain it much say and no veto over the ensuing Peace Treaties. Those Treaties would look towards 19th century Colonial expansion views of 'painting the map in the color of your Nation' and would NOT respect ethnic nor cultural boundaries of the People in those areas.

From these activities, Federal Government would change its basis of what is and is not commonality to the People of the Nation. The very worries of having a Federal Government that would distance itself from the People and their outlook on what it means to have a Nation in common, while always present as a possibility, gained a substantive foundation in this era of 1909-19. The outlooks of Yates and Lansing give pause, here, so that they can be properly looked at in light of these changes.

The loss of Civil Liberties, of the People, changed drastically with the Harrison Act, Amendment XVI and by the Wilsonian concepts that trade should be put above freedom and that Nations should abide by general agreements amongst all Nations and not by specific agreement between specific Nations. Given life today, these outlooks and the Federal power backing them have now diminished the Civil Liberties of the Citizens to have State based outlook upon their lives and to have Federal government that will adhere to the promulgation of liberty and freedom above all else.

Today the entirety of the anti-narcotics movement has gone to drugs that were never seen as a threat to the population and some, while having deleterious effects upon individuals, cannot be properly studied to warn people of those effects as they are *limited* in how they may be researched. Beyond that such drugs put off the ability of the public or even commercial concerns to study also put any beneficial effect of them, for study, under such strict control that it is almost impossible to do so. What started out as a 'temperance' movement has blossomed into a Congressional power to utilizes the 'commerce clause' to oversee and regulate purely intra-State commerce. The Supreme Court has upheld this on the grounds of some larger 'National Illegal Market' that Congress has oversight upon. With that as outlook there is now no activity done by any individual for any purpose within the entirety of the United States which cannot be ruled upon, by Congress, because of its theoretical effects to ANY 'market' be it legal or illegal in nature.

With the ability of Congress to tax individuals directly has also arisen a tax courts system which is NOT part of the Civil Law system but is part of a 'tax law' system. This tax law area is not amenable to simple Civil Law oversight and operates independently of it with severe restrictions on adjudication and even on the basis of having a jury of one's peers or the pre-supposition of innocence. By using the ability of the Federal Government to array a case against individuals and those individuals, no matter how wealthy, having the law, itself, stacked against them, find it hard to stop such courts and the power of them over individuals. The actual Revolution was FOUNDED upon the motto: 'No taxation without representation.' As subjects of the Crown they expected to have voice and say in the matter of taxation and work something out *with* their Sovereign so as to find a more equitable basis for repayment of loans for the French and Indian Wars. That is why the US Constitution does NOT invest Congress, originally, with the power to tax individuals in disproportionate or unequal manner. A power such as that is one that was seen to lead to abuse, corruption and, ultimately, despotic trends.

The entire tax code, itself, while in theory put to a means whereby a 'graduated tax system' is imposed, so that wealthy individuals pay a higher proportion of earnings than do the poor, the entire investing of the system TO Congress has made the system rife with lobbyist exceptions so that vast swaths of the wealthy population pay next to NO taxes and some businesses or entire industries pay NONE at all. While the affluent do pay more in proportion and overwhelmingly, the amount of income that has 'shelters', 'loopholes' and other means to escape taxations is far, far larger than that income which is taxed. That is neither 'fair', 'liberal' nor in the best outlook to make a harmonious whole of the Nation as the rich may sinecure funds and their power base so as to enrich themselves via 'unearned income' and other vehicles, while those with little or no means to invest cannot avail themselves of those same benefits in any way, shape or form.

The United States moved from a basis of taxing the imported goods to the Nation, so that those supporting the purchase of foreign goods would, likewise, help fund the Nation so as to have fair and even regulation of such importations, to a strange concept of seeking to have 'free trade' with everyone and put no burden on imports save on those things which industries can lobby Congress so as to shield them from this 'free trade'. This goes far above and beyond the very few businesses needed for National Defense goods, and incorporates a wide range of manufacturing, refining and basic goods systems. Agriculture, in particular, has seen massive Federal subsidies, grants and support while equal goods from other lands have had restrictions and high tariffs placed upon them to 'protect' these businesses based upon their lobbying power.

The Federal Farmer No. 3 of 10 OCT 1787 frames the view on allowing the Federal government power of taxation in this manner:

Should the general government think it politic, as some administrations (if not all) probably will, to look for a support in a system of influence, the government will take every occasion to multiply laws, and officers to execute them, considering these as so many necessary props for its own support. Should this system of policy be adopted, taxes more productive than the impost duties will, probably, be wanted to support the government, and to discharge foreign demands, without leaving any thing for the domestic creditors. The internal sources of taxation then must be called into operation, and internal tax laws and federal assessors and collectors spread over this immense country. All these circumstances considered, is it wise, prudent, or safe, to vest the powers of laying and collecting internal taxes in the general government, while imperfectly organized and inadequate; and to trust to amending it hereafter, and making it adequate to this purpose? It is not only unsafe but absurd to lodge power in a government before it is fitted to receive it? It is confessed that this power and representation ought to go together. Why give the power first? Why give the power to the few, who, when possessed of it, may have address enough to prevent the increase of representation? Why not keep the power, and, when necessary, amend the constitution, and add to its other parts this power, and a proper increase of representation at the same time? Then men who may want the power will be under strong inducements to let in the people, by their representatives, into the government, to hold their due proportion of this power. If a proper representation be impracticable, then we shall see this power resting in the states, where it at present ought to be, and not inconsiderately given up.

That ability to continually expand government and increase taxes to do so is seen as a direct problem for representative democracy in which those with the power of taxation continue onwards to expand the power and the taxes without recourse or direct input from the People. Even giving the Federal government ANY power of taxation was seen as an inducement to corruption and loss of liberties, so the expansion of it is, again, a clear warning of power concentrating into the hands of the Federal and out of the hands of the People. This is warned about repeatedly as a source of corruption and ability of the Federal government to keep and hold power to itself above the People. Amongst many Cato No. 6, Brutus No. 5 looks at this, as well as in No. 3, as does Centinel No. 4 from a more trade oriented perspective on the tariff power, also John DeWitt No.2 looks into the expansive taxation authority of Congress.

In purely governmental and democracy terms, the movement taking checks and balances out of the Federal system have had wide-ranging and deleterious impacts upon the Citizenry. On the side of the Senate, the removal of State based veto by absence so that even getting a quorum required actual 'good legislation' that would benefit all of the States has been bypassed in its entirety. For all that was decried about that, and the negligence of government to do things, that was seen as the natural basis OF democracy: self-limitation upon the scope of government so that it would do less harm by not being able to be active.

From the House side, the movement to a set House has caused 'gerrymandering' to become the illiberal method of creating strange districts to unite disparate and remote populations so as to sinecure pure party affiliation. This is not a representation of local outlook based on proximity of people actually having to do this thing known as 'live together in harmony', but the ability of political parties to harden their control based on ideology that is dispersed within States so as to remove this idea that individuals living near to each other should have oversight upon their own affairs. With that the two political parties now exchange power based a mere handful of seats and popular views that spread via means within communities gain no foothold as there is no coherent community based districts for such views to sway Representatives. Even worse is that the number of people necessary to form a district has so swelled that individuals can no longer expect to even know or even see or communicate directly with their Representative. The idea that one might actually meet such a Representative because he or she actually 'lives nearby' has been removed as a foundation for democracy by this set-size House. The Georgia Gazette also publishes a letter on this, and wonders on the ability to increase representation to 1 to 20,000 or 1 to 15,000 so as to better represent the People in their diversity across the States.

A clear warning of this was heard from 05 OCT 1787 from Centinal No. 1 :

Thus we see, the house of representatives, are on the part of the people to balance the senate, who I suppose will be composed of the better sort, the well born, etc. The number of the representatives (being only one for every 30,000 inhabitants) appears to be too few, either to communicate the requisite information, of the wants, local circumstances and sentiments of so extensive an empire, or to prevent corruption and undue influence, in the exercise of such great powers; the term for which they are to be chosen, too long to preserve a due dependence and accountability to their constituents; and the mode and places of their election not sufficiently ascertained, for as Congress have the control over both, they may govern the choice, by ordering the representatives of a whole state, to be elected in one place, and that too may be the most inconvenient.

It appears that this individual actually expects a VERY Representative form of government to be the normal course of affairs in life and that moving as high as 1 per 30,000 would yield far too few Representatives to properly give a voice to the Will of the People. And yet we now move to 1 per 550,000 and higher with each passing election and the actual ability of the People to have *any* voice when individuals are drowned out by cacophony is now the rule, not the exception.

Purely on Foreign Affairs, the United States still has, as a cornerstone, that the Executive is the sole organ of government for international relations. This idea is firmly upheld by the US Supreme Court in US vs. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp. decided in 1936. That power and outlook has been substantially altered by the outlook to move towards some quasi-Congressional power extending beyond their mere Treaty regularization power or their power for US Commercial and Navigation conduct upon the High Seas and airspace. Explicitly, via the Supreme Court upholding the Constitution, Congress gets no such power nor outlook. Here the expansiveness of the 'commerce clause' on an intra-State basis is being utilized to somehow expand Congressional power beyond the United States in its agreements via Treaty. Congress was specifically cited in US vs. Curtiss-Wright to give more than due deference to the Executive in these areas as they are categorically NOT the same as those powers within the Nation. Congress has seen fit to ignore this as members now talk with enemies of the Nation who have clearly stated their enmity for the Nation and see no good coming from the United States as it is antithetical to their outlooks on the world. Any attempt to do anything in a policy realm where there is NO Treaty to back things up is beyond any power given to Congress by the People.

From the Wilsonian outlook on international bodies comes strange ideas that such bodies should have source of power or capability in regulating what the People of the United States can do, say or think. Organizations, like the World Trade Organization, have some sort of authority body meant to adjudicate trade disputes and impose sanctions and rulings upon those within such disputes. Their Constitutional basis for power on the United States is zero, as that power is granted to the Federal government solely and may not be made to adhere to any outside organization by any Treaty. That is the scope and limits of power handed to the Federal government and it may not go beyond that to subject the Nation to outside institutions and their rulings for ANYTHING as those institutions are not specifically created by the People of the United States. This does not stop business, industry, and trade groups, along with 'humanitarian organizations' from attempting to do otherwise, and any utilization of such rulings or decree for *anything* upon the United States must have full backing of those things the People have ordained and established as their Government held in common.

Those, above, are seen as the problems of such Federal Government when Yates and Lansing said:

"... if a few only were vested with a power of legislation, the interests of a great majority of the inhabitants of the United States must necessarily be unknown; or, if known, even in the first stages of the operations of the new government, unattended to."

These powers and the outlook of Congress no longer put it in accord with the People and the grant of those powers to Congress. Congress may actually *know* the Will of the People, but no longer acts in the interests OF the Will of the People, but, instead, acts to some other goal or modality of operation.

George Mason withheld his name from the Constitution for similar reasons as stated in his letter of objections to it. Some passages as follows are excerpted:

In the House of Representatives there is not the substance, but the shadow only, of representation, which can never produce proper information in the legislature, or inspire confidence in the people. The laws will, therefore, be generally made by men little concerned in, and unacquainted with, their effects and consequences.

The inability to the House to actually and fairly represent the diverse opinion of the People is seen as distancing representative democracy from the People and to no longer represent the People. This was a common worry amongst those deciding about the US Constitution: that 1 to 30,000 would *not* yield a representative body that reflects the Nation. Centinal No. 1 looks at that amount and finds it too lacking in true representative proportions. As does Brutus No. 3, which looks at the House:

"This branch of the legislature will not only be an imperfect representation, but there will be no security in so small a body, against bribery, and corruption."

Also in John DeWitt No. 3 is the proposition that a district based representative scheme is not compatible with the community and town based formulation of representative government then known in the States:

"But how are these men to be chosen? Is there any other way than by dividing the Senate into districts? May not you as well at once invest your annual Assemblies with the power of choosing them—where is the essential difference? The nature of the thing will admit of none. Nay, you give them the power to prescribe the mode. They may invest it in themselves.—If you choose them yourselves, you must take them upon credit, and elect those persons you know only by common fame. Even this privilege is denied you annually, through fear that you might withhold the shadow of control over them. In this view of the System, let me sincerely ask you, where is the people in this House of Representatives?"

It is a strange world we have come to with mass media society that sees actually 'hearing from the People' in multitudes so as to represent the Nation as something that should be limited to a few hundred individuals and sinecured to two political parties. With too few individuals there is no internal oversight and accountability *within* the branch itself and it can become undemocratic via that very small cadre that serve there.

Today we now have Congressional Representatives who are more interested in securing funds and power than they are in actually having good government or being a fair representative of the People of the Nation. We have ample evidence of that seen in the Abscam investigation and the transcripts of Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) on his view of government:

MURTHA: Let me tell you what I see. Howard, his deal with you guys, or two other guys [Thompson and Murphy], I'm dealing. I'll tell you how I feel about my part of it. My part is that you don't need to spend a goddamn cent on this thing. That's my feeling. Howard feels differently about it. These other two guys have as much influence with the administration and in Congress as anybody. There's no question about it. There's no question about these other two guys being long-term members, being chairmen of the right committees. They're the right people. But -- you gotta look at it realistically, you gotta know all the facts before you can do anything at all. Now, as I told Howard, I want to deal with you guys awhile before I made any transactions at all, period. In other words I want to say, "Look put some money in these guys," and I, just let me know, so I can say, you know, these guys are gonna do business in our district. Then there's a couple businesses that I'm not personally involved in but would be very helpful for the district, that I could make a big play of, be very helpful to me. After we've done some business, then I might change my mind. But right now, that's all I'm interested in. [12:00:40] Period. And I'm gonna tell you this. If anybody can do it... and I'm not bullshitting you fellas, I can get it done my way. There's no question about it. I can get it done. And the thing you gotta remember is, what happened to [South Korean agent Tongsun?] Park and those guys, you can't start going to people that you don't know, that don't level with you, that bullshit you, that don't look into it. For instance, I may tell you in a week after I look into it can't be done. It cannot be done. And I'll tell you. I won't bullshit you. When I make a deal, it's a goddamn deal. That's all there is to it. And, uh, you know, after it's done, you may tell me, well you've already done it, there's no reason for me to deal with ya. Howard tells me that you're not that kinda people, that, you uh, you know, that you deal, you know...

[..]

MURTHA [12:14:13]: The thing is, what I'm trying to do is establish the very thing that you talked about. That tie to the district, that's all I need, from then on -- I'm gonna be there 20 years in that goddamn Congress. I don't want to screw it up by some little goddamn thing along the way that, if I wanted to make a lot of money I would have been outside making a lot of money. And you, I know what I can do and what I can't do...I won't bullshit you, that's for sure....you got two good people, and I just want to know -- well, I know the facts.

That is some distancing of the Nation, the People and politicians looking out for the welfare of the Nation. From that is heard clearly the warning of George Mason on Representatives having little acquaintance with implications beyond their own scope and outlook. The corruption of power is just as important if not *more* important than mere money, and we see here that the expectation of utilizing money to stay in power with the funds directed to the 'right businesses' is corrosive to good government. Where is the internal oversight of the House, these days, anyway? Unfortunately the too few members are too busy to do anything about it.

Not to leave the upper body alone let us see what George Mason had to say about the Senate:

The Senate have the power of altering all money bills, and of originating appropriations of money, and the salaries of the officers of their own appointment, in conjunction with the President of the United States, although they are not the representatives of the people, or amenable to them. These, with their other great powers, (viz., their powers in the appointment of ambassadors, and all public officers, in making treaties, and in trying all impeachments;) their influence upon, and connection with, the supreme executive from these causes; their duration of office; and their being a constant existing body, almost continually sitting, joined with their being one complete branch of the legislature,—will destroy any balance in the government, and enable them to accomplish what usurpations they please upon the rights and liberties of the people.

Any affiliation between the President and the Senate for getting Immigration Amnesty voted in is purely coincidental, I am sure. While the connections to the Executive have proved troublesome, from time to time, the Senate by being so much between elections gets little opportunity to actually understand what the Will of the People is. In some ways this was meant to be a moderating influence upon the every vexatious and changing Will of the People, but in others it also moves ideas for what makes good government that upholds the rights of the People to the side while trying to utilize the power of government to reach Senatorial ends. When a Senate acts 'off the record' and 'behind closed doors' to draft legislation and then immediately moves to stifle debate or even give time for legislation to be READ by the members, that is a movement to abuse of power by the Senate. And in the case of Immigration Amnesty, it puts at peril the very rights of the People to determine what the Laws of the Land are and to hold Congress accountable for NOT funding them to be enforced and the Executive for NOT enforcing them. Even with more time given to debate, the original move to limit such time and debate is an anti-democratic one that speaks ill of the Senate to conduct itself in a reasonable fashion for sweeping legislation.

From Cato No. 3 on 25 OCT 1787 is heard this about political liberty:

Political liberty, the great Montesquieu again observes, consists in security, or at least in the opinion we have of security; and this security, therefore, or the opinion, is best obtained in moderate governments, where the mildness of the laws, and the equality of the manners, beget a confidence in the people, which produces this security, or the opinion. This moderation in governments depends in a great measure on their limits, connected with their political distribution.

Where is our political liberty without any security in this Nation? It seems to me that trying to welcome in large numbers of individuals to unbalance the Nation and to do *nothing* to actually secure the borders of the Nation when known enemies have already utilized such lacks to get here is not only immoderate but fool hearty. In not taking any recourse to actually pay for enforcement of the laws nor uphold them, Congress does not act in moderate manner nor in a mild one, but is abdicating its duty to the Nation. We can have no security if government will not enforce the laws it makes. This is not the part of Franklin warning about security and liberty, this is lack of ANY security denying ALL liberty to have a Nation free from outside influence and control.

From Cato No. 6 we hear of this outlook upon the problems of the Senate:

"In every civilized community, even in those of the most democratic kind, there are principles which lead to an aristocracy—these are superior talents, fortunes, and public employments. But in free governments, the influence of the two former is resisted by the equality of the laws, and the latter by the frequency of elections, and the chance that every one has in sharing in public business; but when this natural and artificial eminence is assisted by principles interwoven in this government—when the senate, so important a branch of the legislature, is so far removed from the people, as to have little or no connexion with them; when their duration in office is such as to have the resemblance to perpetuity, when they are connected with the executive, by the appointment of all officers, and also, to become a judiciary for the trial of officers of their own appointments: added to all this, when none but men of opulence will hold a seat, what is there left to resist and repel this host of influence and power. Will the feeble efforts of the house of representatives, in whom your security ought to subsist, consisting of about seventy-three, be able to hold the balance against them, when, from the fewness of the number in this house, the senate will have in their power to poison even a majority of that body by douceurs of office for themselves or friends. From causes like this both Montesquieu and Hume have predicted the decline of the British government into that of an absolute one; but the liberties of this country, it is probable if this system is adopted, will be strangled in their birth; for whenever the executive and senate can destroy the independence of the majority in the house of representatives then where is your security?—They are so intimately connected, that their interests will be one and the same; and will the slow increase of numbers be able to afford a repelling principle? but you are told to adopt this government first, and you will always be able to alter it afterwards; this would be first submitting to be slaves and then taking care of your liberty; and when your chains are on, then to act like freemen."

It is such warning signs that the generation of the Revolution and the Constitution remembered the excesses of other government types and warned about the abuses that even a republican government can slide into over time. Where is the security in a Senate that proposes in changing the ability of the Nation to have Sovereign Laws and National Sovereignty that must be respected first, and above all, so that the People may feel secure in the Nation? Suddenly bringing an immigrant class in that has demonstrably respected neither the Law nor the Sovereignty of the Nation and doing so with cooperation of the President is a major worry as only the 'feeble house' remains to safeguard liberty in its few numbers. And those few are from positions of power where their districts do not change in alignment very often and the actual Will of the People is no longer clearly heard because of the watering down of clarity from smaller populations against the 'mass movement' concept that the current set House size encourages.

That is, apparently, the state of the Republic of the United States of America today.

Taxes by Congress to pay for all sorts of 'public goods' and yet do the public little good in the long run. And such taxes get made more complicated, year on year, until no one can understand them and the 'progressive' concept is so undermined that most corporate income and that of the wealthiest do *not* get taxed. That has some benefit to the Union, still, but it is one of being dependent *upon* the wealthy to fund the Nation and not upon the People to shoulder that burden.

A Senate that has lost all connection with common Americans that it no longer governs by a best outlook for Americans, but only for themselves and their parties.

A House that does not swell to meet the growth of the Nation so as to reflect its communities. Instead the two parties have so ingrained themselves that they now change districts to reflect the parties and NOT the parties to reflect the districts. By doing so they become as fossilized as the Senate as Rep. Murtha put forth in his outlook of being in the House for at least 20 more years way back when in 1980. It now has equal 'perpetuity of rule' as the Senate does.

Finally there is the term limited President, who need not even try to run for re-election and now spends more time trying to find a 'legacy' and looking overseas to dictatorships to try and appease them so as to get such a 'legacy'. Such legacies of that, however, tend to be ones in which World War results, at worse, or in which those dictators remain unopposed by anyone and are able to gull the next President by sweet words of: 'if you give me just a little bit more...' Such are the 'legacies' of North Korea, Syria, Libya, Iran.

These are the signs, not of a healthy democracy or functioning Republic. That first generation that put criticism against the US Constitution clearly stated what the problems with it were and are, to this day, and what the repercussions of giving too much to central government would be. They saw things like: Monarchy, Despotism and Tyranny as the result. The winds of what used to be just partisanship have turned cold and ugly this past decade, and the outlook by those in office today is that they are after pure power as they have shut out the voices of the People in the Nation in their representative government. While previous generations have, indeed, heard partisan attacks, the vitriol and vehemence of the stultified two party system is one that no longer aims at 'common assent', but at turning out a 'committed base' and so stifling debate as to disenfranchise the rest of the People by attacking common ideals of self-governance and accountability. One law for the ruling and favored, another for the 'common man'.

And if you don't like what government does, then that is just too bad. If you *criticize* government, then those same partisan supporters and 'committed base' attack such individuals on a personal basis, not on the substance of those criticisms which are not meant as attacks. That is what is now seen by those trying to support the concept of having a Nation State as the prime and, indeed, ONLY way of securing freedom and liberty. By polarizing all issues to politics, there is no commonality left for common agreement, common consent, common government and support for the Nation by All of the People.

Keeping a Republic healthy requires eternal vigilance against the depredations of those seeking to secure power for themselves and do more than just 'govern'. That is why those seeking to put forth that Congress has powers it does not have, that breaking the agreements on actually enforcing the law and securing the Nation, and those that wish to see the Nation fail at all it does are not seeking human freedom nor liberty. The end result of those things is Tyranny.

Or Empire.

Either is the end of the Republic of the United States of America.

And the weight of history is upon this generation as it is upon each generation since and including the Revolution. The Nation is being pushed towards a river and to change to meet the goals of incompetence and an elitist outlook on human freedom, one that is not set in anything solid and has no basis in fact. That river is not the Rio Grande.

But its looking a hell of a lot like the Rubicon.