Previously, before I developed a couple of commingled and intermittent computer problems, which I might add has made my scalp just that much thinner, I was in a discussion about the veracity and importance of the federalist papers. Rather than respond to a long forgotten thread, I thought it relevant to just give my reply in a post. I had tried to do in on the 15th which was the 222nd anniversary of the Bill of Rights but the fore mentioned computer malfunctions prevented that attempt also.
Anyway, as we can probably all agree, we often get crossways with each other over the approach we take at looking at a particular problem. Of the divisions that seem to stymie agreement between us on most issues I tend to see honesty more than anything else the biggest problem. Now don’t get me wrong, for the most part I find the thought process of most people is essentially good, if perhaps misguided. We tend to listen to that which soothes our hearts and makes sense but if the message is manipulated, so to can our understanding of both the situation and our real beliefs. From the time I was a toddler, honesty was taught as a paramount virtue. While at the time, it didn’t seem right that I was praised for being honest but simultaneously punished for the confessed deed; it is now and has been for many a year proven to be a most important a character trait.
In a recent discussion over the Federalist papers it was brought to my attention (not that I haven’t had the point made several times before by several people of the same political bent) that they were only written as a sales pitch to the people of New York and Virginia for express purpose of smoothing the adoption of the constitution. The purpose was to allay any fears people might have about the potentially abusive provisions… To calm those people who knew that an over powerful federal or power centralized in a singular monarch, regardless the title, was not in their best interest as individuals and as a governed society. Anyway, this was presented to me as mere puffery which neither had nor has any relevance to the constitution or its rightful interpretation.
Essentially I was told that those writings were no more credible than a billboard advertising the “Satisfying, Clean and Relaxing Taste of a Winston Cigarette”. Well if the Federalist Papers are to be taken as nothing more than ad pitch of a cigarette package then the Anti-Federalist papers were the Surgeon General’s warning label. The attempt to sell these writings as harmless ad copy of a commercial enterprise shows either a desperate attempt to negate their relevance in a losing debate or a general weakness of resolve to hold our ‘leaders’ to their word.
You see, when you refuse to hold people to the honor of their words, you get mediocrity of character in return. The Federalist papers are relevant because the writers were promoting, not selling, (There is a distinct difference much like the words ‘Provide’ and ‘Promote’) the constitution and they were promoting it to all the American people because the ‘musings’ were reprinted and read throughout the colonies. Of the three authors Alexander Hamilton and James Madison should have been trusted emissaries for the ‘non legalize’ intent and interpretation of the drafted document and John Jay, considered a founding father and president of the Continental Congress was certainly more than a flack man hired to put forth a disingenuous spin on the nation’s basic law.
What people say matters… “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”(under oath) and “If you like your insurance, you can keep it” where lies known to the people who uttered them the instant they left their lips. Even “read my lips” was a lie if he even had any inkling that it might not be the case. If we allow and indeed except this kind of leadership… it is what we must come to expect. Just because the Federalist Papers do not fit with a desired interpretation of the constitution and the resulting federal government, does not minimize the words. This poses the question… if you believe and support the Federalist papers as no more than puffery to sell a document that would not have otherwise been ratified in the light of truth, can you be a friend of the people who voted to ratify it under such false pretense? If you deem the writers of the federalist papers as liars, deceivers, prevaricators or fabricators then you must ask… Why did they lie? Is it because people who seek unmitigated power and the ability to use force over others, must lie? … And more importantly, why do people defend the deception and support a position carried out by people they admittedly believe to have lied to achieve their aims?
As an aside”If you like your insurance, you can keep it” has been awarded the ‘Lie of the Year 2013’ award.
I have said it before. A politician sells me only one thing… integrity. All of the words and all of the rhetoric mean absolutely nothing without integrity. I don’t care what kind of money is thrown around Washington, if you elect people with integrity, it doesn’t matter. I would much rather elect someone who I agree with only partially but can count on to do what they say, than a person who will tell me what I want to hear and do just the opposite because it advances their own ambitions. And I despise leaders who twist and evade the spirit and intent of the constitution to put forth an agenda that is, in the long term, harmful to the liberty and freedom that tens of thousands of men and women have died to preserve.
Perhaps people are correct… perhaps the words of the federalist papers were indeed no more than puffery to induce a people to do something they would not otherwise do… does that mean that we just say ‘oh well, we’ve been duped’ and happily allow the ‘real’ intent to be adopted, or do we hold that constitution and the ‘ad copy’ to its word? I don’t disagree that these men saw a greater good in ratifying the constitution but I do disagree with allowing dishonesty to pass just because it helps a devious group to achieve an unstated goal. Much like the deceptions that created the 16th and 17th amendment, we must not allow these deeds and people to be forgotten because if we do, then others of bad character will follow to further their dishonesty.
If we believe that the men who constructed the constitution were liars,,, deceivers, then we must believe that every provision of the constitution is a lie… including the bill of rights. And if we have no Bill of Rights between us and our government, we have truly advanced no more than the people who fled England in the first place. Of course, if you aspire to have a nation or a borderless region of the world devoid of our written constitution … then you should be honest… you should stand up and say that you don’t like the constitution and that it should be scrapped. If you think the constitution should be modified, at least be forthright about how it should be changed to become a ‘modern’ constitution… perhaps though, because many see the plot of the left, it is unwise to have that kind of honesty... Perhaps we are not politically correct enough.
TS I first saw your post this morning about six but put off a response until this evening to better have the time to read and absorb your words and give it the thoughtful reply it deserves.
ReplyDeleteThe Federalist papers were they lies? Well not exactly they were what would be in today's world a vast series of editorials published in the American press at the time. Were they lying? well not exactly I would more call it spinning their opinion upon the people much as today's politicians do.
The federalist Papers were written, yes to the people. Because the premise of the Constitution was to construct a government of the people and not the states each state set up a ratifying convention to take the process away from the state legislatures and place it in the hands of the people. True or false, lie or spin, the opinions opined in these writings were in fact to sway the votes necessary in the big states, the states that at time it mattered as the smaller states would then follow. Maybe every word was true and if so it would be amazing that two men of obvious conflicting views on the nation they were building were able to write these papers and convince two states of obvious conflicting views of what they expected from our union.
The anti- federalists papers are basically the same as we do here. Points from the federalist Papers were taken and argued against, for the same reason, to sway votes away from ratification. It’s all politics.
Now for the Constitution. Me you everyone here believes in the constitution. The difference is what we want from it. So really after all these years nothing has ever changed.
ReplyDeleteLet’s start with a strong central government. Again I think everyone here is in agreement that our government is too big. It is too big because well meaning, and sometimes necessary programs are adopted but they never end. We have lots of things going on that have outlived their usefulness. There is no accountability which means there is abundant fraud. Always has been. But Hamilton was right that we needed a strong central government. Proof of this lies in Europe a continent that had at that time and well beyond been consistently at war with each other. In more modern times the breakup on the Soviet Union has produced a series of small states that are rife with corruption and disagreement without the hand of big brother to lead them. This could have been the United States without a strong central government. The smaller states would have always been at a disadvantage to the larger ( this was a primary reason for the constitutional convention in the first place although they were only charged with changing the Articles of Confederation). A strong hand at the wheel was what let this nation become great.
Free markets thank Alexander Hamilton. But because of the dishonesty of mankind regulations have had to be developed to regulate business. And the necessary and proper clause allows for this.
ReplyDeleteStates rights: States were given the authority over all issues not covered in the constitution but those rights have always been limited. It is written into the constitution that federal law is supreme and that in cases of conflict federal law wins every time. States rights were actually put last in line if you look at the big picture not in the forefront. The constitutional ratifying conventions were purposefully formed to prevent state legislatures from deciding the issue. States can pass laws states can do what they want but no where in the constitution does it state that the federal government cannot revisit an issue previously put off on the states. There is no provision for passing a law first. If several states pass conflicting laws on a subject the fed can revisit the issue and pass a law that may not be in the best interest of a particular state but in the interest in whole body of the nation. Totally constitutional. States are prohibited nullifying federal law which is what South Carolina is attempting to do and states cannot secede from the Union because they don’t agree with a particular statute. States cannot enter into treaties separate of the federal government, states cannot impose duties and taxes on one another. More constitutional points that make the whole thing work.
Who was right Hamilton? Jefferson and Madison? Fact is that neither were. The country would not work in a land of minimal laws, no regulation and a rural agrarian society that Jefferson envisioned. The country would not work with the totally un regulated banks and free markets of Alexander Hamilton’s vision. It took and continues to take both credos to make our country great and to keep it humming along. What ultimately made it great is the development of our great middle class and we are losing that. Not because of our president and not because of our congress but because of the greed of mankind.
ReplyDeleteWhat you want as a strict constitutionalist is everything to be constitutionally done. Never has been never will be. The constitution is a frame work to build a government of the people. All the people. When it was written only propertied males could vote. Blacks were only 3/5th of a human being. We have come a long way. Rightest see the left as trying to destroy the constitution. The left feels the same way about the right. Nothing has changed in all these years.
Being a framework for our government by the people, yes the constitution is a living document one that has poorly kept up with changing times. But we hold dearly to it so change comes hard.
TS you want a country with minimal government intrusion, a plan that won’t work because until we can trust everyone to do the right things we have to have regulations and a guiding hand. I want the equal opportunity for all that was promised by our founders within the documents they left us. My Friend I don’t think we will ever get either