Federalist Paper #37

     Public policy is rarely examined in a calm, rational manner and determining whether something is good or bad for the public good is often not the question. Opponents to a given policy will condemn it applying predetermined biases, and likewise a supporter will approve it without full examination. The Federalist Papers were not written for either of those groups, but for those that were sincerely passionate for the happiness of their country and also capable of discerning the best way to go about it.
     In writing the Constitution the Constitutional Convention took into consideration the problems with the existing government and tried to improve upon it. The difficulties included providing for a necessarily stable, energetic government with infrangible principles of liberty. The Convention's conclusions came about without party hostilities and all the representatives were either pleased with the final result or convinced to sacrifice their own private opinions and interests for the sake of the public good.
     Perhaps it's because I have my own preconceived biases, but in today's politics we have those that give reasonable arguments and information to back up their stance as Publius did, and we have those that tell them they need to compromise (perhaps a little more than compromise), or the world will end as we know it. Apparently, I am not in the group of people the Federalist Papers would have been aimed at; hopefully, the reasonable arguments and information of today will reach the same type of people Publius was successful at reaching.

Federalist Paper #23

     In order to provide a "common defense" the federal government needs the ability to raise armies, build and equip fleets, regulate and direct their operations and provide support to them (financial and otherwise). Hamilton felt these powers should have no limit since it is impossible to predict future national emergencies. Therefore, there should not be a lot of constitutional restrictions in dealing with the "common defense and general welfare" but the federal government should not be allowed to pass the buck (so to speak) to the states either, requiring quotas and requisitions from them. The federal government needed to have its responsibilities (national security being probably the most important) spelled out, but it also needed to be given the power and ability to carry them out.

     The founders desired to grant full power to the government to do its jobs well, but those jobs must also be defined well in order to prevent it from having too much power in areas it has no business. The federal government encroaching on state and local authorities is far too common today. By stretching the meaning of "common defense and general welfare" and other phrases modern governmental agencies (that probably shouldn't exist in the first place) are able to convince decision makers somehow that if Farmer John kills a pocket gopher for example our "general welfare" somehow suffers. 

Part 2 The Great Compromise

     In Glenn Beck's introduction to the the next section he points out that tyranny, not freedom is man's natural state of government. Without a strong force such as our Constitution to protect individual rights, tyranny will return. We must be careful not to equate the Constitution with government. The Constitution not only protects us from the tyrannical individual but also from government itself. Remember, the government is not our "protector."

     The public at the time of the Federalist Papers was wary of handing over their newly, hard won freedoms to anyone, which was why the Articles of Confederation were not binding on the individual states making each state its own entity. Publius knew how necessary it was to unite the states in order to protect our freedoms. Unfortunately, even with a strong Constitution our government is ever so gradually heading toward the natural state of tyranny by stretching the boundaries of its powers. 

     The founders understood by studying history that neither monarchies which assume there is a perfect, wise ruler, nor utopias which assume man is perfect would result in the type of government they fought so hard for. They wanted balanced power with each branch watching over the other and the people watching over it all with the primary roll of government to simply protect our liberties and rights so that we can 'pursue' happiness.

     It is interesting to note that there were many compromises made during the writing of the Constitution. Then, as now, government moved slowly and issues such as slavey, which many of the founders opposed and believed to be inhumane, had to be postponed. Insisting on its abolition would have ultimately meant no constitution and no union. Sometimes, as the founders understood, very important issues must be postponed or there is no chance of a solution.

 

Federalsist Paper #85

     In Hamilton's final paper he made one last appeal for the ratification of the Constitution pointing out that he had tried to stay rational and reasonable in his arguments avoiding emotional responses and typical political rhetoric. (Modern politicians could sure learn a lesson from that!) He reiterates that the Constitution was not perfect, but it was good and probably the best that could be done under the circumstances of the times (perhaps any time). Because it was not perfect, the allowance for amendments had been made, and adding them in the future would be more easily accomplished. Making those changes before ratification would actually make it a new document that would have to be approved by each state. Whereas after ratification, amendments could be added with the approval of just nine states. Also, the original Constitution had many specific details and provisions making it difficult to accommodate everyone. It had to be written in a way that all parties would agree. Future amendments would be dealing with a single proposal - political maneuvering and compromise would not be necessary.  Glenn Beck reminds us that through this amendment process we have been able to fix some of the original problems (i.e. slavery, women's suffrage, not to mention the Bill of Rights).
     Hamilton's final point is that a nation must have a national government. Writing the Constitution during a time of peace with the time to develop it properly, rather than during a time of turmoil when decisions are made in haste, and with the voluntary consent of the people is a miracle. (And just one more reason why it is what it is and so important that we follow and restore the proper balance of power that was spelled out in it).
   

Federalist Paper #11

     At the time these papers were written, the existing power nations were a little nervous of America's adventurous commercial character realizing what it was capable of, especially if it formed a decent Navy. Those nations would be rooting for America's division in order to stay on top in the commercial world. A Federal Navy would benefit the country, not only for protection, but also in influencing commercial relations with other nations. A strong navy would not be possible without remaining united. As a strong, united nation our friendship, or at least neutrality, would be greatly desired, influencing our abilities to trade in a favorable manner with other nations. Without that power we would be taken advantage of commercially, being forced to accept others' prices and tariffs, most likely losing profits. We would no doubt lose our adventurous spirit, be disgraced, and end in poverty.
     The ideas in this paper are as relevant today as they were at the time. By borrowing money we are losing our control having to bow down to others (China). Without keeping our military strong we can be easily taken advantage of, both politically and commercially.
   
 

Federalist Paper #2

     Will the American People be better protected as one nation or as several separate confederacies? This is the question that had to be answered and the people had to be fully convinced that whatever was decided was based on sound policy. It was argued that it was obvious that we should stay together as one country - we are a connected country blessed with a variety of natural resources and industries and had a common background with a similar culture, religion, etc. and had fought together for the same liberty and independence. Our country was not made up of distant, detached territories and people.
     The men writing the Constitution were well respected men with the confidence of the people and were not distracted by power or influence, but focused by love of country. Today, the division of our people in its goals and ways of thinking as well as allowing our leaders to slip away from sound policy and be distracted by power and influence is definitely destroying our great nation. John Jay's final quote from Shakespeare could be a bit of prophesy: "Farewell! A Long farewell, to all my greatness."

Federalist Paper #1

Hamilton was greatly concerned that local politicians would fight the Constitution because they were afraid of losing their existing power. The way he described them makes me think of politicians today (I guess they haven't changed much). He warns against those that put too much emphasis on "people's rights." I think of overly done equal rights laws, healthcare, and other social and environmental issues that sound good, but cause many problems. Those that push this agenda are more often than not using it only as a smoke screen to hide their own selfish power seeking agenda.

Part One: A New Order for the Ages

Because the delegates were originally sent to Philadelphia with the purpose of amending the Articles of Confederation and came back with an entirely new governmental plan and a new Constitution they had a lot of justifying to do. The Federalists could have threatened the people with all kinds of consequences should the Constitution fail to be ratified. Instead they took the calm, logical approach (not done today too often) and addressed each of the legitimate objections, explaining why this was the best alternative. Publius argued in a civil tone avoiding personal attacks. He was trying to bring the country together, not divide and conquer (what a concept!). It was made clear that this document was being debated and recommended, not forced on the people.

Politicians by definition are a dividing force in society. Throughout our history our unity comes from our common values and virtues (which seem to be not so common anymore) not our politicians. Many of our values and virtues are voiced in our Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution. Unity in Europe was different from our unity. It often came from royalty - all bowed before the king. Other forms of country unity comes from other forms of force.

Our system is by no means perfect, and the Constitution was almost not given a chance for that very reason. The sinful nature of imperfect man makes it impossible to create a perfect system, but if we hold true to our core principles petty partisan squabbles can be dealt with.

Continued Ruminations: Glenn Beck's intro

Can man govern himself, intelligently choosing his own form of government without force? This was (and perhaps still is) the question going on at the time of the proposed Constitution. Like today, there were two very opposing sides, the "Federalists" and the "Anti-Federalists." The latter were skeptical that the republic would fail and the larger states would have more power, or even the presidency could turn into another monarchy. However, the Articles of Confederation did not give the federal government enough power, leaving the prospect of a crumbling government ripe for a take over, possibly by something much worse than the British king. Alexander Hamilton realized this and even though he personally supported a stronger government than the new Constitution allowed he also understood it was about as good as it was going to get. He enlisted James Madison and John Jay to help him write a series of letters to help convince those opposing the Constitution to change their minds. These letters became known as the "Federalist Papers."

Today these papers help us to understand the main principles of why the founding fathers included what they did in our Constitution:

• Why smaller government is better
• The differences between state and federal powers
• The best organization and operation of government and how to prevent another monarchy

Many of the arguments are only relevant to that time period, but many of the truths included apply to today just as much as it did then. These letters were public and available to everyone, so it can be assumed that the delegates voting to ratify the Constitution agreed with these truths. Even the Anti-Federalists were convinced that this was the best way to go.

Ruminations while reading Glenn Beck's The Original Argument

For my first attempt at blogging I have decided to record my thoughts as I read Glenn Beck's latest book:

Joshua Charles, a recent college graduate, took it upon himself to rewrite the Federalist Papers in modern English so that Joe Average American could understand and maybe even enjoy reading them. He joined forces with Glenn Beck to complete the book, allowing for more notoriety and publicity.