Is It All Obama's Fault?

www.patricksamuels.com

[Mikey76]

A Look at the Constitutional System Through the Debate over Ratification

The unrest we are seeing across this county is now on a scale not seen since the war protests of the sixties. Yet this is very different. Today's protesters cross the socioeconomic spectrum, they are from both political parties and no political party. What unites them is not age or drugs or religion. What has brought all these Americans together is a mixture of anger and fear. The fear is for the future, their own and their children’s. They fear the results of too much spending and borrowing. They fear an administration that puts those who disagree with them on watch lists and uses mob-like tactics of intimidation to get its way. They are angry with a congress that rushes legislation through without reading it. They are angry with a government that ignores their concerns, labels them with sexual innuendoes and is indignant when anyone dares question their wisdom or methods. They are angry with a government that demonizes business for jets and junkets yet enjoys all those perks and more on our dime. This list could go on and on.

Most of these people are not mindless political operatives like the rent-a-mobs bused in by leftist groups. These people know the issues, they understand basic American government, they know the Constitution and have a reasonably clear understanding that the government we have in Washington is not what was intended in 1776. Most understand that this government has been overstepping it’s bounds for a long time and this energetic administration’s desire to expand it so much farther and at such a pace has finally coalesced opposition to the statist agenda. How far the opposition is willing to go will determine its success. If it is merely preoccupied with stopping the current agenda of health care, cap and trade and out of control spending, its effectiveness will be short lived. The statist will merely pause, regroup and implement their agenda piecemeal or in another form. Government has been growing nonstop for over a hundred years with only the slightest pause here and there. If the goal is to roll back the Great Society programs and the New Deal, repeal the sixteenth and seventeenth amendments and dissolve the Federal Reserve, then there is some hope for restoring lost liberty and reversing our slide into tyranny.

While President Obama’s ambitious agenda has provided the catalyst for liberty loving people to finally speak up, there is a larger question that must be asked. Is President Obama and the statist agenda really outside the mainstream or is it a logical result of our system of government? There are several possible answers to the first part of the question. Those who love the tenth Amendment would say “yes”, this government has taken powers for itself that are far above and beyond the specifically enumerated powers enshrined in our foundational document. Those who understand history could easily reply “no” and point to the fact that the history of the world has been, with few exceptions, a history of tyranny. Every government seeks to expand its power as much as possible and our government has demonstrated that it is no different. It has pushed and pushed and until now, we the people, have yielded.

For those who love and respect the Constitution, the answer to the second part of the question is an emphatic “No!” Many believe the Constitution to be an inspired document developed by brilliant men who put together a form of government with checks and balances that would be strong enough to do the necessary things government needs to do while safeguarding the liberty of the people. While I agree that the Constitution outlines a form of government superior to most, it is not perfect and its flaws were evident to many during the ratification process. Perhaps as the American people are asking questions about their government that haven’t been asked in a long time; questions like “what are the limits of government power”, “what is the proper role of government in our lives”, perhaps we need to explore the more fundamental question of “is the form of government we have the most effective in securing the liberty of the people and safeguarding the ideals of the American Revolution?” For years people have explored the possibility of a new constitutional convention to repair our broken system. Such a move is met with fear by many but as we contemplate how best to restore our lost liberty, a look at the arguments and warnings from the losing side of the ratification battle in 1788 may be instructive.

One thing to keep in mind when we talk about the Constitution is that it was formulated in what can only be described as a “bait and switch” plan. Most delegates went to Philadelphia to amend the Articles of Confederation which, admittedly, had demonstrated serious inadequacies. Instead, a whole new form of government was proposed. What happened in 1787 we would call a coup today. The delegates ignored the confederation’s rule of unanimity, circumvented the current congress and submitted its approval to special state conventions. The plan was put before the people as an all or nothing proposition, there was no bill of rights or any other amendments. Opponents like Patrick Henry said only a fool would buy a defective machine in the hopes of repairing it afterward. In Pennsylvania they tried to get the legislature to move quickly on ratification and when some members stayed away to prevent a quorum from approving, a mob went out and dragged them into the chamber for the vote. There were efforts in New York and Boston to suppress pamphlets critical of the constitution. Opponents said the quick ratification by several states was done despite substantial opposition. Some delegates readily admitted voting for the constitution against the wishes of their constituents. Does any of this sound familiar?

The greatest debate over ratification of the constitution was held in Virginia where passage was far from assured. Passage in Virginia was crucial because without it the nation would be geographically split and deprived of the weight of one of the most powerful and prosperous states. It was also pointed out by the proponents of ratification that George Washington would be ineligible for the presidency if Virginia failed to ratify. So the battle was joined by two of the leading men not only of Virginia but of the nation; James Madison and Patrick Henry who stated, “I look upon that paper as the most fatal plan that could possibly be conceived to enslave a free people”. Many of the quotes and concepts that follow will be from those men and others in the Virginia debate but there were opponents in other states whose voices will be included as well.

First and foremost among the arguments against ratification was that the Constitution contained no “bill of rights”, something Virginia had adopted over a decade previous and which Patrick Henry had a large hand in creating. Richard Henry Lee argued that if the constitution were to be adopted without any amendments, particularly without a bill of rights, the new government would be what he termed, an “elective despotism”. James Madison argued vehemently against the inclusion of a bill of rights. In reality the federalists did so because specific attention given to individual liberties would impair the efficiency of the powerful central government they wanted. A scant decade after ratification, John Adams’ Sedition Act ignored even the explicit first amendment, demonstrating the underlying motives of the Federalists. George Nicolas also stated in support of ratification that as long as the people remained virtuous and uncorrupted there would be no abuses by congress because the people would not tolerate them. Patrick Henry immediately jumped on this assertion, stating that when virtue and revolutionary sentiment faded, there would be nothing to prevent a slide into tyranny. Even the Declaration of Independence supports Henry’s point when it states “that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while the evils are sufferable, that to right themselves....” Most people, then and today, want to go about their lives and not think about their government. They don’t want to make the time to get involved. After all, we elect people to “represent” us and they are supposed to do so with our best interests at heart. So people are “disposed” to put up with little things, allowing them to accumulate until at some point they do become insufferable. Today we see that reaction in the tea parties, the protests and the town halls.

Henry argued that the defects needed to be remedied first and that the supporter’s contention that civil liberties were protected by “implication” as a most foolish notion. He saw nothing but extreme danger in the use of “constructive power”. He said, “If they can use implication for us, they can also use implication against us. We are giving power, they are getting power; Judge, then, on which side the implication will be used!” The opponents of ratification believed the implied powers and vague language of the constitution made it too reliant on those who would be wielding the power. If that was the case, the people were getting a government of men, not of laws. Such a government cannot be trusted for any grant of power carries with it the seeds of oppression and unless the plant is closely watched and frequently pruned, tyranny will be the result. If the administrators are just and honest, fine. But a defective construction opens up a Pandora's Box of evil if the administrators are less than virtuous. The people were being asked to grant great power to the government and take the chance that they would not be abused. Liberty cannot rest on the contingency of the people in charge being good or bad.

We all know that power is a corruptive influence. Any form of government could be implemented to protect the liberty of the people if the people running it decide to respect those liberties. Human nature is what it is, however. Politicians and others who seek power do so not with the idea of limiting themselves, but of expanding that power to the highest degree they can. The challenge then, is to develop a form of government that will prevent those in power from having the ability to expand it or exercise it in a way that aversely impacts the freedom of the people. For many of the revolutionary generation this was to be accomplished by keeping politics as local and representative as possible while protecting the people with a bill of rights that limited that representative government’s power. Patrick Henry believed that only a government small in scale, close to home and broadly representative could operate without infringing on people’s liberties. Not that it would be benign but it would be much more accountable.

The power of taxation was also a hot topic. James Madison, stated that the power of taxation would be little used by the government. “It can be of little advantage to those in power to raise money in a manner oppressive to the people.” Keep in mind that this issue was debated long before the sixteenth amendment and only concerned Article 1 section 2. Several arguments were proposed by the opposition, I will detail two of them. The first was a concern that through the use of the power of direct taxation the central government would annihilate the states because the people would not bear double taxation. We see this “annihilation” of the power of the states in the use of federal money taken from the people and redistributed to the states with all the rules and regulations the federal government requires for its distribution. George Mason added that the congress was insufficiently representative to be trusted with direct taxing power. He said that it would sit at “aristocratic” remove from the people and have no “fellow-feeling” for them.. How true this has become. He also thought they would be easily corrupted and would tax the poor in the interests of the rich. While the reverse has become true, that makes it no less unjust.

This creation of a new “aristocracy” was a constant theme of the opponents of ratification. Self made men like Henry did not want to see the government end up in the hands of the landed gentry. He thought little of the supposed checks and balances believing the president could become a despot and the senate dominated by a handful of members would degenerate into a “sinkhole of corruption” and become the president’s accomplices in diplomatic treachery. He was not the only one who felt this way. “Centinel” wrote that the constitution had “its true features concealed” in a “daring attempt to create a despotic aristocracy”. Melancton Smith of New York warned that the constitution would create an aristocratic tyranny that would result in despotism. In our day of career politicians where the only way to get rid of many of them is to wait for them to get old and die, these were certainly not unfounded fears. The aristocracy may not be the same as it was in Henry’s time but today’s closed political class is no less privileged, arrogant or secure.

Patrick Henry also attacked the “consolidated government” because he regarded it as a misguided attempt to conceal a lust for power and greatness that would lead to large armies and navies and an expensive government of “place men, colonels, courtiers and tax gatherers” who would design legislation to serve the interests of the “ambitious few”. He believed that such a government would inevitably become tyrannical. He said “I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower classes of people.” Another very wise statement. President Obama has placed the crosshairs on anyone who makes a decent living, middle to upper middle class, we may call them. They are the “evil rich” who need to get some “skin in the game” and “spread the wealth”. However, if you are a billionaire instead of a millionaire, now you are a contributor to the party and the tax code helps you out. The same goes for “Big Business”, which receives billions of dollars in bailout money while “small business” gets squeezed through onerous regulations and taxes. The lower class is made a lot of promises but after forty years of the “War on Poverty”, government intervention on behalf of the “lower class” has done nothing but make sure they stay “lower class”. Henry was right. If one can afford the lobbyist, one is taken care of. For the rest of us, this government operates in ways that are more and more tyrannical.

Finally, Henry also argued that the convention had no right to use the phrase “We the People”. The states, not “the people”, had sent the delegates and by using this phrase and all its implications, this government would hold a coercive power over the people that the confederation specifically prohibited. To those of Henry’s mind, as well as those who had developed the original congress and confederation, the national government was meant to be a body in which the states would cooperate. “The said states hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other....” Article III It was the states that had the taxing authority to support the national government (which didn’t work very well at the time), it was the state legislatures that sent delegates to the congress with strict term limits and it was the states in supermajority that would decide the most important issues of the time. The national government in the early revolutionary period was never meant to directly represent the people nor have any impact directly on them through tax or regulation. In the Constitution, Henry and others saw the abandonment of that principle, the circumvention of state sovereignty and an eventual tyranny directly over the people.

Ignoring Henry’s statement that “If you give too little power today, you may give more tomorrow. But the reverse does not hold. If you give too much power today, tomorrow will never come,” Virginia ratified the constitution, although it had already become law with New Hampshire’s ratification four days prior. That was not the end, however. There was still the question of amendments which the Virginia resolution allowed to be recommended. Besides the “Bill of Rights” there were several amendments offered that Madison dismissed. Included among them were limits on presidential terms, the requirement of a two thirds vote for commercial laws and treaties, a prohibition of direct taxes unless states failed in requisitions, and a different method for impeaching senators. George Clinton of New York, even after ratification, called for a second convention to repair those parts of the constitution that “appear so objectionable to a majority of us.” The last thing Madison and the federalists wanted was another convention where radical changes might be made. He believed public opinion was too “unsettled” to risk it. The Federalists prevailed. There was not another convention, the Bill of Rights was adopted and we have been operating under the Constitution as the supreme law of the land ever since.

We now come back to our original question. If the 1787 convention would have amended the Articles of Confederation instead of replacing it with the Constitution, would we be where we are today? There is no question that the opponents of the Constitution’s ratification look prophetic. Yet the Articles had severe flaws and it may be doubted whether the confederation would have remained unified, particularly in the first fifty to one hundred years of our history. Ultimately, it comes down to this. Every system of government has its flaws, including ours. It is the character of the people in power that make it tyrannical or not. The opponents of ratification understood that the more distant and powerful the government, the more tyrannical its tendencies. Power relinquished by the people is never returned for government has an insatiable appetite and will always seek more. If our representatives would have retained the “revolutionary ideal” and valued the concepts of limited government, Washington DC would still be a sleepy town on the Potomac and the real centers of power would be found in the state capitols. Power over the people would be more subject to their review simply due to proximity. That was the desire and intent of the majority of the revolutionary generation.

So is it all President Obama’s fault? Certainly he and past presidents, and the current and previous congresses, are responsible for their actions. That this current crop is more totalitarian than most is obvious. However, as long as there are elections, we get the government we want. If we elect people of low character who are going to interpret the Constitution in ways that enable tyrannical actions, or we let them get away with ignoring it and the bill of rights entirely, the fault, ultimately, lies with “We the People”. A flawed system populated by politicians of flawed character will always have a tendency towards tyranny and corruption. The need is to elect people who have the character and fortitude not only to resist those tendencies but to rework the system in ways that limit its power and restore liberty and freedom to the people. The fate of the country, as always, rests in the hands of the American People.

“Liberty ought to be the direct end of your government” Patrick Henry

Quotes from:

A Son Of Thunder Henry Mayer

The Forging of the Union 1781-1789 Richard Morris

Patrick Samuels

www.patricksamuels.com

[cvq3842]

Bookmarked! thanks.

[Mr. K]

Answer: yes

[piytar]

My answer: Most, but not all. The rest is the fault of the donk Congress that got in power in ‘06. The RINO overrun GOP gets partial credit for that. And ultimately, it’s the fault of the moronic 53% who elected zero...