2nd Rev-Ideas-bckgrnd_Fedist-anti-Fed_USConst_Oct2017 (musings)
Bckgrnd_Fedist-anti-Fed_USConst_Oct2017 (musings)
Stream of consciousness – multible sources ~ Oct 2017 ++ ??
The Europeans to settle America were Explorers, Adventurers and Entrapeuners
@@@@@@@@ best quote @@@@@@@@
The question for us today is whether a series of historical happenstances actually created a closed system of government that can be and often is detrimental to our individual safety and wellbeing and the process of self-governance.
When closely examined, the quality and quantity of power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution is not just mathematically greater than that of the states, but includes an aspect that certainly surprised and distressed me and I’m quite sure will do the same to most readers. I came across this information from two sources — the Federalist papers and a college course called “The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponent of the American Constitution” taught by Professor Thomas Pangle at the University of Texas Austin.
@@@@@@@@@@@@ ~ list of most influential FF, other stuff ~ @@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Note-2-self: phrase — deputizing representatives to act on behalf of the Am public vs ‘deligate’ who carries out someone else’s wishes
Americans generally agree that the goal of our democratic republic is a resilient and sustainable democratic system of self-governance. What is equally if not more important to contemporary society but not generally understood is the actual power of “We, The People”, versus what we as ordinary citizens think our powers to be.
This historic issue began in 1784, after the Revolutionary War ended and the leaders of the day – our Founding Fathers – gathered together in Philadelphia for the first meeting of the Constitution Convention on May 14, 1887. Except for Rhode Island, which chooses not to attend, each of the other 12 states was represented by 1 to 9 delegates, with the common goal of creating the democratic system of American government that we know so well today.
Just seven of Founding Fathers were later identified by historians {Richard B. Morris} as playing the most key role in the formation of our democratic republic Historian (John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and George Washington), but the Constitutional Congress actually included many dozens, with 56 of them becoming Signers of our US Constitution, but only 30-40 of these representatives were present on any one day.
The anti-Federalist Founding Father (states rights) were afraid that electing a chief executive (i.e. president) as head of the executive branch could easily turn into a ruling aristocracy, with the president taking on the role and powers of a king and using the federal government’s great powers for the betterment of his own elite class, at the expense of everyone else.
The anti-federalist were promoting what they saw as the safer option: a small federal government that acknowledged the supremacy of states (instead of the federal) government and so they were opposed to the idea of scraping the Article of Confederation and replacing it with a new constitution
In contrast, the Federalist were most afraid of foreign invasion by hostile powers who would take over the country, AND insurrection by opposing political factions who exploited the inherent weakness in democracy, the ability of a faction (i.e. minority group) to use democratic means to achieve undemocratic ends, thus allowing them to subvert our rule of law.
The Federalists had different ideas. While they were not against the idea of enumerated state’s right, they believed in a strong central government and federal protection for individual rights. This required a new and very powerful Constitution.
One way to think about the difference btw ‘States Right’/small government vs strong federal government is that the anti-Federalist Southern states wanted to maintain the absolute level of independence that they had under the Articles of Confederation. This would permit them to continue to violate human rights (particular ownership of slaves, laws outlawing mixed race marriages and adoptions, race-related sexual conduct, and what later became known as “Jim Crow” laws).
In sharp contrast, the federal government was committed to the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence that protected the human rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (also defined a “estate’, a word that meant all that one owned, including tangible property but also rights that we new equate with civil societies such as speech, assembly, religious freedom, etc).
As the scope and power of the new Constitution became more apparent, the anti-Federalists repeatedly (and correctly) warned the new USC would create a system in which our national government would eventually have overwhelming power, as granted by the “Necessary and Proper” clause (Article 1, sec. 8).
There are many aspects of the US Constitution that could be profitably discussed other than the one i will focus in this essay. The issue of singular importance to contemporary society is the actual vs. perceived power of “We, The People”.
Did 1784 configured of the USC created a system of “majority rule” that Americans have always assumed provided effectively use ‘checks and balances’ to the People, and thus guaranteed that the wishes of the majority would ultimately prevail?
The question for us today is whether a series of historical happenstances actually created a closed system of government that can be and often is detrimental to our individual safety and wellbeing and the process of self-governance.
When closely examined, the quality and quantity of power granted to the federal government by the US Constitution is not just mathematically greater than that of the states, but includes an aspect that certainly surprised and distressed me and I’m quite sure will do the same to most readers. I came across this information from two sources — the Federalist papers and a college course called “The Great Debate: Advocates and Opponent of the American Constitution” taught by Professor Thomas Pangle at the University of Texas Austin.
@@@@@@@@@ Crowd-sourcing democracy parts 2 7 part 3 — factions @@@@@@@@@@@@@
Imagine for a minute what our American democracy would look like if, in 1787, a Constitutional fluke allowed the federal government to barricade itself against the direct political participation of its citizens in order to prevent undue influence by ‘factions and guard against ‘mob rule’, while leaving the doors wide open to a particularly and powerful faction — lobbyists, their lawyers, the rich and the famous — and this dubious behavior was legally unquestioned and unchecked for the next 200+ years?
While direct access to ordinary citizens continued to be blocked, these two special interest groups – corporate lobbyists and the uber wealthy – would be free to wander the hall of Congress at their leisure, chatting amicably with senators and congressmen and their office staff, occasionally dining with the president, while providing, on a quid pro quo basis, a direct pipeline to a nearly unlimited stream of campaign contributions and other juicy incentives to bargain for special treatment and special favors?
If you said “Politics-as-usual in 2017”, you’d be exactly right, because our constitutional system that does not permit citizens to remove elected officials for bad behavior, or initiate impeachment when our president, even if his actions/inactions clearly constitute an immediate and overwhelming danger.
%%%
As lowly un-elected citizens, the severely-limited political power of ordinary Americans is frustrating to every citizen. But the effects of this historic constitutional problem have become devastating during the last half of the 20th century, as mass communications technology – radio, film, television, cable news, social media – has allowed corporations and the uber wealthy to dominate the public discourse and relentlessly manipulate public opinion thru the 24-7-365 news cycle. This eventually turned America into two weaponized factions who have turned their furry back on one another. Just how effective disruptive this has been was recently communicated by Congressman Marco Rubio, who commented that it was:
“impossible to govern when half the country hates the other half”.
The answer to my ‘thought-provoking’ question that is supported by facts, and troubling in the extreme. We are seeing a very detrimental and non-democratic relationship btw the ‘elected’ and the electoral process in a country devoted to democratic principles. Instead of a newly elected Congressman or Senator being primarily concerned with their job performance as judged by those who elected them, these elected representatives have developed a laser-like focus on raising money for their next election, so they can retain their current government position or move on to a more influential one.
