tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-66204488582340583952023-11-15T06:35:17.455-08:00The Founders' ConstitutionJim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comBlogger26125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-57655054088372237622013-01-14T18:59:00.002-08:002013-01-15T04:31:47.526-08:00Instructions to the Delegates from Mecklenburg, North Carolina, to the Provincial Congress at Halifax, 1 Nov. 1776, I.2.8This North Carolina congress (the fifth and final of the five which were held from 1774 to 1776) approved the first constitution of the state, including its "Declaration of Rights" (such as the right to peaceable assembly and the right to bear arms.) The instructions bid the delegates to accept the Declaration of Independence, to press for a simple democracy for the state, and to oppose the concentration of power in the hands of the wealthy.
The delegates were to press for a bill of inviolable rights of the people and individuals, which would maintain that the people are the source of power, that politicians are their servants and have inferior power, so that the people are the ultimate authority and so that no other power should be able to alter the determinations of the people.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-3838563648194800092013-01-14T04:29:00.002-08:002013-01-15T04:31:21.430-08:00Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, 26 Aug. 1776, I.2.7Jefferson would like the senate to be wise and independent. Its members should be elected by representatives of the people since this will greatly increase the likelihood of their being wise (the people being less likely, and their selections more, to elect wise men.) The senators should also be limited to one term (of nine years) since this will let them be free from worry about re-election and therefore independent.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-56930628264595744562013-01-13T12:31:00.001-08:002013-01-13T12:31:11.176-08:00James Burgh, Political Disquisitions, I.2.6Burgh (1714-1775), a British Whig and schoolmaster, was involved in reform movements in the mid-18th Century in England. His point in this passage is simply that members of the British House of Commons no longer take seriously their duty to represent their respective groups of constituents. The power of the representative derives from his having been selected by his constituents and in former times members took this seriously by reflecting their constituents' views and consulting with them before making decisions. But by Burgh's time, they think themselves entitled to be members for life, their elections are infrequent and corrupted by bribery and power-broking, they take themselves to be dictators, and they feel themselves national leaders, rather than representatives of small areas. Burgh laments that the danger of power without responsibility is a perennial lesson which must be learned over and over again by the people.
In this deplorably corrupted state of affairs, Burgh sarcastically remarks, "And yet we are a <i>free</i> people."Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-66569541538746677882011-06-27T12:17:00.000-07:002011-06-27T12:23:24.235-07:00James Otis, The Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved, I.2.5Otis treats it as axiomatic that the legitimacy of governmental authority is dependent upon the consent of the people. The deification of kings was a trick used to obviate this axiom, since only God's authority trumps that of the people. Otis mocks and ridicules such deification and notes that the prevention of this ruse is a good reason for separating religion from government.<br /><br />Otis states the purpose of government succinctly:<blockquote>The end of government being the good of mankind, points out its great duties: It is above all things to provide for the security, the quiet, and happy enjoyment of life, liberty, and property....In solitude men would perish; and yet they cannot live together without contests. These contests require some arbitrator to determine them.</blockquote>Note the trio "life, liberty, and property."<br /><br />Otis notes that the unwieldiness of direct democracy makes it necessary that the people appoint representatives of their will in government. The form of government (democracy, aristocracy, or monarchy) and the division of executive and legislative branches are questions which Otis says are for each society to decide. In any event, the people may depose their government when it acts against their interests.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-59665243688125223812011-06-25T11:58:00.000-07:002011-06-25T12:02:26.639-07:00David Hume "Of the Original Contract" I.2.4The sleepy ready might be forgiven for nodding a bit at the beginning of this excerpt of Hume's essay and taking Hume to be merely voicing assent to the Lockean view of the basis of political authority. However, the point of the essay is to demolish Locke's view. The beginning of the excerpt acknowledges only that in the time before government, there must have been some consent to be governed in order for government to have been created since people are roughly equal in power and one could not easily subdue another.<br /><br />Hume contends that such original government would have been short-lived and small in scope had its chieftain been able to solidify it by the use of force. The frequent persuasion of force caused an habitual acquiescence to his rule and became no longer necessary. In fact there is no actual case of government by consent in the Lockean sense, Hume points out. Authority is instead based on particular cultural conditions everywhere we look and never based on the consent of the governed. A lengthy history and the habits resulting from it (i.e., the tradition and culture) produce this authority and the reverence for it and also conceal from us a more distant past of forced subjection resulting itself from the exigencies of inter-tribal warfare and the power of a general over his soldiers which lasts even after military victory. Consent is a chimera which cannot be reconciled with actual historical knowledge.<br /><br />Furthermore, if some original contract were the basis for authority, this would assume that the consent of ancestors could obligate descendants, which is certainly objectionable to "republican writers." Moreover, elections are not only rare but always by the suffrage of a tiny few, which shouldn't obligate all members of society on the republican view. These wise electors choose leaders who can keep order and master a people who need one but are not wise enough to choose the right one. Again, the man on the street will say that the authority of his revered prince has nothing to do with whether he consents to it or not but rather that he consents to it because it is authority. There isn't even tacit consent in the obedience we observe in actual societies. Finally, the duty of allegiance to political authority is based on the apprehension of the utility of an orderly society, rather than consent. (This is a rule-utilitarian calculus where a person sees that if everybody disobeyed the chief, conditions would be intolerable.)<br /><br />Hume agrees that consent is "the best and most sacred" basis of government. But he contends that it is hardly ever to be found as the basis of actual observed authority.<br /><br />Let me propose two Lockean responses to Hume's critique. First, the utility of social order may well be part of the basis for obedience to political authority, but it is also a reason to give consent to be governed. Moreover, the Lockean might contend that the legitimacy of any governmental authority depends upon that government's being of a kind to which an informed and rational subject would consent, namely a just and competent kind. The Lockean consent, then, might be seen as not only tacit but logically implicit in the sense that although few members of a given society consciously recognize that there are sufficient reasons for consenting to the authority of the government, any reasonable and informed member of society should come to this conclusion if he thought it through. Of course there are good qualities of a government which call forth consent to be governed but these qualities constitute authority itself only with the addition of this implicit, tacit consent. Hume is right that history, tradition and culture cover up this logic, but perhaps it is nevertheless real.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-12414562920576967892011-06-25T09:36:00.000-07:002011-06-25T09:41:16.186-07:00Montesquieu, "Spirit of Laws (II.2)" I.2.3Here we find the following key ideas of government:<br /><br />Suffrage should be given and limited to the right people. For this is precisely choosing a sovereign.<br /><br />The people should decide everything they can decide. What they can't decide, because of its complexity or its need for quick decision ("the motion of the people [being] always either too remiss or too violent."), should be decided by the representatives of the people Therefore, these representatives should be chosen by the people. The people are quite able to select representatives using common sense (see quote below.)<br /><br />Suffrage should be public so that the upper classes can influence the vote of the lower who otherwise might vote for their own destruction.<br /><br />Montesquieu says that "[t]he people are extremely well qualified for choosing those whom they are to intrust with part of their authority," because the facts required for them to do so (for example who has been a good general and who is talented in business) are obvious. However, he warns that when they "are gained by bribery and corruption," they "grow indifferent to public affairs and avarice becomes their predominant passion. Unconcerned about the government and everything belonging to it, they quietly wait for their hire."Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-73655836081793750542011-03-01T20:51:00.000-08:002011-03-01T21:17:19.307-08:00Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letter 38, I.2.2The gist of this letter is that many politicians will try to make the they govern believe that government is for experts and not for them to stick their noses into. They will then misrepresent the voice of the people in the political forum and proceed to plunder and oppress the people. These are "not Governors, but Jaylors and Spunges, who chain them and squeeze them, and yet take it very ill if they do but murmur; which is yet much less than a People ought to do." Politicians need not be experts. For governing "Honesty, Diligence, and Plain Sense are the only Talents necessary...."<br /><br />According to Gordon, the voice of the public should have influence in government because it is in the public's interest that the government be good and it cannot be bribed. A politician, on the other hand, can be bribed and can find it in his interest that the government be oppressive and plundering.<br /><br />On this last point, Gordon is mistaken. Votes can be bought. There is no unified voice of the people. Perhaps Gordon didn't realize this because he didn't conceive of a government which would command enormous wealth redistribution schemes with which to bribe the people by having them share in the plunder. For his definition of government is "a Trust committed by All, to the Most, to One, or a Few, who are to attend upon the Affairs of All, that every one may, with the more Security, attend upon his own[.]"<br /><br />Also, Gordon draws a stark contrast between England and other countries, namely Turkey, as if English government weren't prone to precisely the corruption he describes. I doubt that.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-25385701854459437182011-02-28T21:59:00.001-08:002011-03-01T20:52:24.987-08:00Locke, 1.2.1, Post 2Locke sees government as a remedy for the unavoidable disorder attaching to the state of nature in which every man is judge of every other's transgressions. It is not, as Hobbes thought, that government is absolutely necessary in order to stop us from following the law of nature which, in the absence of government, bids each man to treat every other with extreme prejudice and preemptive violence. For the natural law bids us to respect the liberties of others insofar as they do not impinge upon our own, all men being equal and independent, and all being the property of God. Rather, it is only the confusion of having as many judges as members of a society and the proneness to bias which a victim has in judging his assailant that makes the institution of government appropriate. The government having this basis, it is answerable to the citizens of a commonwealth for its miscarriages of justice (a view which Hobbes would likewise have disagreed.) The people of a commonwealth may even get laws defining the role of the government. These are not arrogant encroachments upon the prerogative of a ruler, as if the people were irrational and benighted beings who ought to submit to their superiors without reservation. Rather, they are stipulations on the way in which the government is to fulfill its purpose, which is precisely the good of the rational beings who will submit to it.<br /><br />The basis of government is that it is reasonable for member of a society to have an institution which protects their liberty and property. Anyone in the region of a society with a government and who enjoys that government's protections, tacitly submits to its jurisdiction over his property. If, and only if, he explicitly consents to subject himself to this government, he becomes, irrevocably, a full member of this society.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-56766655347644518232011-02-28T07:41:00.000-08:002011-02-28T08:20:10.903-08:00Locke, I.2.1, Post 1In these selections from <i>The Second Treatise</i> Locke says something which it is critically important to understand. It comes in paragraph 54.<br /><br />Naturally, all men are created equal. And yet they are unequal in talents and character, alliances and family bonds. These differences may make it reasonable for us to hold certain people in higher regard than others, and they are not the basis of moral equality, the equality under moral judgment amongst all men. This equality is like equality under the law, but here the law is the moral law, rather than political law. The respect in which we are morally equal is that every man has a right to be free and not subjected to another's will.<br /><br />No one is to receive arbitrarily special favor or disfavor when he is judged by others. This is because no one has less or more right to liberty, the right to be left to act unmolested by others (except insofar as his prior violations of others' similar rights have made it appropriate to sanction his behavior.) This is the sense of equality underlying political equality under the law.<br /><br />There is no trace here of equality as equality in character or talent - these Locke explicitly denies - or equality in desert of wealth. These are simply not there. Equality in desert of wealth is incompatible with the property rights Locke propounds in the treatise because redistribution of wealth in order to spread it evenly must violate these rights. <br /><br />(An aside: Some libertarians have maintained that this is a violation of liberty, as well, such that to be the victim of redistribution of wealth is to be at least partially enslaved. I disagree with this. I think that violation of property rights is theft and not enslavement, since to have one's wealth stripped away is not to be forced to act or restrained from acting. Plunder is not enslavement. In any event, the salient point is that Locke distinguishes these types of equality and it is crucial to understanding our political system that one understand its basis in moral equality.)<br /><br />(Another aside: One might notice two senses of "moral equality" here: equality in moral character and equality under the moral law. The latter holds amongst all people. The former is very rare.)<br /><br />(A final aside: One might wonder what the grounds for equality under the moral law itself are. Here one might appeal to the meanings of moral terms and to human nature. Moral language embodies a conceptual system in which it is nonsensical to allow arbitrary differences in judgment where descriptions of events are the same and only personal identities differ; for more on this see the archives of Philosoblog. Also, human nature is such that the right to act without being subjected is innate. I think this basis in human nature may be reduced to conceptual facts about moral language, but that issue takes us far afield.)Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-2988127263612899662009-04-09T14:02:00.000-07:002009-04-09T14:03:56.303-07:00The Constitution of the United States, I.1.9, Post 6Hamilton said in Federalist 84, "[W]hy declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" Indeed. As it turns out he was wrong because matters were even worse than he expected. We understood and followed the Constitution so poorly that it is good that we at least have had certain enumerated rights.<br /><br />1. Freedom of speech, assembly. No state-establishment of religion.<br /><br />2. Right to keep and bear arms.<br /><br />3. No forced quartering of soldiers unless by law.<br /><br />4. Right to due process in criminal law: no unreasonable search or seizure; warrants must be with probable cause and narrowly focused.<br /><br />5. An open set of due-process rights, such as the right to grand jury indictment, the right not to testify against oneself, and the right not to be deprived of property with out due process and just compensation.<br /><br />6. Along with the 5th Amendment, further rights to speedy trial, legal counsel, and so forth.<br /><br />7. There is a right to jury trial in civil cases over matters exceeding $20.<br /><br />8. Excessive bail and fines and cruel and unusual punishment are prohibited.<br /><br />9. The mention of certain rights in the Constitution is not to be taken as indicating a complete list of the people's rights.<br /><br />10. Powers not specified in the Constitution as belonging to the federal government belong to the states and the people.<br /><br />11. Reiteration of the fact that the U.S. courts do not have authority in civil cases against a state.<br /><br />12. Sets up a system by which electors vote separately for vice presidential candidates.<br /><br />We have merely breezed through the actual Constitution and the first 12 Amendments because there is no point in this blog's spilling ink on them. Our target is the other selections in <i>The Founders' Constitution</i>. Next, we turn to John Locke.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-76675553368730075882009-04-06T12:00:00.001-07:002009-04-06T12:00:48.620-07:00The Constitution of the United States, I.1.9, Post 5Article V provides for amending the Constitution by proposal of Congress or of two-thirds of the state legislatures and by ratification of three-fourths of the states.<br /><br />Article VI accepts that contracts made before the adoption of the Constitution are valid. It states that the Constitution and laws made by Congress are supreme laws of the land overriding state law. Members of state and federal legislatures, judicial officers, and members of the executive branch all must take an oath to support the Constitution.<br /><br />Article VII stipulates that the ratification of nine states is sufficient to establish the Constitution.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-44681309447037685872009-04-06T11:36:00.001-07:002009-04-06T11:36:59.423-07:00The Constitution of the United States, I.1.9, Post 4Article IV sets up terms of cooperation and respect amongst states. Citizens of one state must enjoy the rights of the citizens of any state. Any fugitive from justice from one state shall be returned to it by the state to which he flees, documents, laws, and judicial decisions of one state shall be respected by other states.<br /><br />The article also allows that Congress may admit new states and regulate U.S. territories and property. It guarantees a republican form of government to the states, and it requires that the federal government protect the states from invasion and, upon request, internal violence.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-15229527080326034042009-04-06T11:35:00.000-07:002009-04-06T11:36:24.876-07:00The Constitution of the United States, I.1.9, Post 3In Article III we see that federal judicial power lies in the Supreme Court and inferior federal courts establishes. It extends to cases arising under the Constitution, U.S. laws, U.S. treaties or maritime matters, cases in which the U.S. is a party, and cases between an American and a foreigner; in all these cases it has appellate jurisdiction. (However, the 7th Amendment secured the right to trial by jury in civil cases where amounts at stake exceed $20.) The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in cases involving foreign service officers or in which a state is a party. All criminal cases are to be tried by jury.<br /><br />Article III also defines treason: levying war against the U.S. or adhering to or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Congress declares the punishment of treason.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-50803760850391308582009-03-13T18:51:00.000-07:002009-03-14T06:51:24.952-07:00The Constitution of the United States, I.1.9, Post 2The Constitution divides powers across the people, the Congress, the president, and the judicial branch. Man has a tendency to do evil and to oppress Man. The dispersal of power helps to stop him from becoming a tyrant.<br /><br />Here at The Founders' Constitution, we'll be lingering over many of the founding documents. But I am only taking a cursory bird's-eye view of the Constitution itself. Let's take a look at the executive branch: the president.<br /><br />The president commands the army, navy and, when called up to serve the United States, the militia.<br /><br />The president may require of any member of his cabinet an opinion regarding the affairs with which that cabinet is charged to oversee.<br /><br />The president may grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States.<br /><br />The president may make treaties with the approval of two-thirds of the senate<br /><br />The president appoints, with the advice and consent of the Senate, ambassadors, judges, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution and which are established by law.<br /><br />The president may recommend laws to the Congress, and address it regarding the state of the Union.<br /><br />The president receives ambassadors and other public ministers.<br /><br />The president makes sure that the laws are executed.<br /><br />The president commissions all the officers of the United States.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-39510889651396793782009-02-25T08:35:00.000-08:002009-02-25T08:42:27.341-08:00The Constitution of the United States, I.1.9, Post 1Let's take a bird's eye view of The Constitution. First, Article I.<br /><br />Below I've listed the powers vested in the Congress by the Constitution. Congress can tax and borrow money in order to provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States:<br /><ul><li>To regulate commerce (amongst states and internationally)</li><li>To make naturalization law</li><li>To make bankruptcy law</li><li>To print and coin money and to regulate its value and the value of foreign money. </li><li>To set standards of weights and measures;</li><li>To punish the counterfeiting of U.S. securities and money.</li><li>To establish post offices and post roads;</li><li>To secure patents for inventors.</li><li>To constitute tribunals inferior to the supreme Court.</li><li>To define and punish piracy and violations of international law (The Law of Nations).</li><li>To declare War (and grant letters of marque and reprisal) and make rules concerning captures on land and water.</li><li>To maintain an army and a navy and set laws governing them.</li><li>To provide for calling forth the militia to enforce law, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.</li><li>To make legislation for the District of Columbia.</li><li>To make laws necessary to execute the powers listed above and all other powers listed in this Constitution.</li></ul>The Congress has no other powers. This is explicitly stated in the Tenth Amendment. Has the Congress stepped outside of its Constitutionally circumscribed authority? Of course it has.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-78333587833960341492008-10-20T07:36:00.000-07:002008-10-20T07:41:14.544-07:00ScheduleNow we read the Constitution, as it is the next selection in <i>The Founders' Constitution</i>. We will only take a cursory overview of the document on this blog, with posts on the Congress, the Executive, and so forth. Afterwards, we will move on to a selection from Locke.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-21485092604214659092008-10-16T07:08:00.000-07:002008-10-26T14:50:46.802-07:00The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 (I.1.8)Coming upon the heels of previous ordinances of 1784 and '85, the 1787 ordinance set up a system of government and of the creation of new states in the territory that would be Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, and part of Minnesota. The settlers in the territory needed government and there needed to be a system of dividing and purchasing the land. Whereas Jefferson's 1784 ordinance allowed for the rapid creation of many small states, the Confederate states of the east wanted to slow this proliferation down in order to maintain their relative power longer. So, the ordinance of 1787 stipulates that normally 60,000 settlers would be required for a region within the territory to become a state, whereas Jefferson's ordinance had allowed for statehood with fewer settlers.<br /><br />the 1787 ordinance made provisions for the inheritance of estates and for a governor of the territory appointed by Congress, a secretary, and a court of three judges. The governor and judges were to decide which laws of the original states to enforce in the territory. The governor was to be the commander in chief of the territorial militia. The general assembly was to consist, in addition to the governor, of representatives from counties of at least 5000 free adult male inhabitants. These were to be elected by the landowners who had been citizens of any of the original states. Congress would choose five representatives from ten nominated by the territorial house of representatives to sit in the legislative council. Hence we have a bicameral legislature with a house and a senate.<br /><br />The document includes articles resembling a bill of rights:<br /><br />1. The settlers' freedom of religion was protected.<br /><br />2. The territory was subject to rule of law: habeas corpus, trial by jury, proportional representation, etc.<br /><br />3. Schools were 'encouraged' because 'religion, morality, and knowledge' were of value. Indian property rights were to be respected and Indian friendship was to be valued.<br /><br />4. The territory was to be part of the U.S. and subject to the Articles of Confederation, to federal taxation, and to a share in the liability for the national debt.<br /><br />5. Three to five states would be formed. When any state had 60,000 inhabitants, it would be admitted in full standing into the confederacy of states. (Admission with fewer than 60,000 was countenanced in the case of regions with republican government.)<br /><br />6. Slavery was made illegal in the territory. However, slaves escaping to the territory from any of the states may be returned to their masters.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-34900591087847198012008-05-13T13:43:00.001-07:002008-05-13T13:46:13.617-07:00<b>Schedule</b><br /><br />We'll next be moving on to <i>The Northwest Ordinance</i> and <i>The Constitution</i>. Then, we'll take in some Locke, Montesquieu, Thomas Gordon, and Hume.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-80144924296802557862008-04-16T22:00:00.000-07:002008-04-16T22:10:53.147-07:00Articles of Confederation, March, 1781 (I.1.7)Finished in 1777 by a committee led by John Dickinson, the articles would establish a United States of America without as strongly centralized a government as the one that later took form. "Each state retains its sovereignty," save for a few powers specified in the document as retained by the Congress. The states would come to each other's defense. They would allow a citizen of each free passage in and out of the others. The states' criminal justice and court systems would cooperate with one another.<br /><br />Each state would send from two to seven Congressmen to Congress, and each state would have one vote in Congress. In Congress they would have freedom of speech and debate.<br /><br />No state would have the right to make treaties, alliances, or trade agreements without the consent of Congress.<br /><br />The states would pay the cost of their common security by contributing money proportionately to the value of their land. There would be no direct taxation of the individual by the central government. This seems to me to be the key sense in which power was less decentralized under this document than it eventually came to be. Without national individual taxation, central power would be stunted. The indirect route by which it would be raised would be more deliberative and therefore less confiscatory. Without sufficient money, there is no great power. I don't mean to imply that the Constitution of the United States that was ratified a few years later was any less anti-centralization in this sense. But it established a larger centralized government; such a thing requires money.<br /><br />In any event, the document says that Congress would retain authority to set foreign policy, including war, to settle disputes between states, to set currency values, to regulate trade, to establish a post office, to borrow money on the credit of the United States, and to establish a military. But only if nine states assented to it could any policy be set in any of these areas.<br /><br />Also, Canada was offered admission into the union; other states could be admitted if at least nine states consented.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-53188294333645190462008-03-31T21:59:00.000-07:002008-03-31T22:02:30.009-07:00Massachusetts Constitution, March, 1780 (I.1.6)This is a lengthy document and a close reading of it lies beyond the purposes of this blog. A few observations will suffice.<br /><br />Striking, but not surprising, given Massachusetts history (the Puritans having left England for reasons of religious intolerance, wishing to find a place where there was more of it), is the salience of religion in this document. The second and third articles of the first part of it state that there is a duty to worship God, a right to worship him according to one's conscience, a duty of the state to require local governments to fund and provide for public Protestant worship, and a right of the state government to require all subjects of the state to attend these services. Each subject may earmark his taxes to go for whichever Protestant service he prefers, all such sects being equal before the law. <br /><br />Much of the rest of the document resembles the U.S. Constitution and the Virginia Constitution, with the three branches of government and so forth. The text also requires the state to promote civil society, literature and morals - including punctuality and generosity!Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-19795300011023568132008-03-31T21:34:00.000-07:002011-07-04T07:17:44.311-07:00Declaration of Independence, July 1776 (I.1.5)It is self-evident that all men are created equal and have rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness. This idea is momentous. The rest of the text is a familiar list of complaints about the tyrannical interference by the English government, and a formal breaking of the bond with England. We will take a look only at the famous line.<br /><br />The term "self-evident" refers to the property a truth has of being obviously true to anyone who understands it. For instance, it is self-evident that orange is more like red than it is like blue, and that scotch whiskey is not the best bowling ball in the world (because it is not a bowling ball.) No proof need be given for these things, in order for their truth to be grasped just by understanding them.<br /><br />Similarly, to one who understands morality and human beings, the equality of human beings and their basic rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are obvious. As for equality, the Founders did discuss the rough equality in strength and wits of human beings, which would prevent any one of them from subjecting all the others. But the equality of the Declaration is that of moral desert, a wholly different concept. This is not the equal desert of material goods, which we find in leftist dogma. It can only be the equality of consideration in moral deliberation. That is, in making moral judgments of a man, all irrelevant particularities about his identity are to be ignored: his hair color, the rank of his father, his location in a colony, rather than in England, etc. The morally relevant features of his person are those he can share with anyone else. Equality here is equality before the moral law. That moral deliberation requires taking its objects to be equal before the moral law is a self-evident truth. If you understand it, you see that it is true. Equality before the moral law is the basis for equality before political law.<br /><br />The three rights enumerated are similarly obvious to anyone who understands morality. Morality certainly has to do with taking into consideration the interests of all people in its scope. It has to do with judging whether these interests ought to be protected, ignored or violated. Morality has to do with more than that, but apart from that we cannot conceive of morality but only of various cults and fetishes which have only the fact of their supposed normativity in common with morality. Now, the most fundamental interests of people are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious to anyone who understands what morality is and what these claims to rights are that these claims are valid and the rights real.<br /><br />It perhaps cannot be overemphasized that there is no trace here of the economic egalitarianism of leftist dogma mentioned above. Only the right to the pursuit of happiness is admitted. There is no right to happiness, let alone a guarantee to such by the state.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-43488608269391827392008-03-28T06:09:00.000-07:002008-03-28T06:17:27.908-07:00Virginia Constitution, May 1776 (I.1.4)The list of authors of the document includes Jefferson, Madison, and Mason. A long list of complaints, angrily expressed at the beginning of it, lay out the injustices done by the Crown to the colonies: obstruction of Americans' giving themselves the law, quartering troops in American towns and making the military superior to the civil powers, taxing without consent, violently "destroying the lives of our people," etc. Virginia will be ruined unless an "adequate mode of civil polity is speedily adopted."<br /><br />The document sets up independent executive, legislative and judiciary branches of government. The legislative was to be bicameral, with a house of delegates and a senate. The legislators would elect a governor. There was to be an eight-member administrative Council of State elected by the members of the legislature. The Governor would command the military, with advice from the Council. Judges would be appointed by the legislature and commissioned by the governor, who, with advice from the Council, would appoint justices of the peace for the counties. The House of Delegates may impeach the governor or the judges for crimes endangering the state.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-35796583458618543022008-03-25T14:32:00.000-07:002008-03-25T14:42:08.719-07:00Virginia Declaration of Rights, June, 1776 (I.1.3)Penned by George Mason, the document declares that certain rights are the "basis and foundation of Government." He says, "all men are by nature equally free and independent" and have inherent rights to "the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety." "Equally free and independent" is a more fortunate turn of phrase than the famous "all men are created equal." The latter leaves itself open to being misinterpreted as supporting economic egalitarianism: the position that all are entitled to a share of the country's wealth equal to that of anyone else. Mason's phrase is more pointedly inconsistent than that of the <i>Declaration of Independence</i> with the servitude of some to others entailed by economic egalitarianism.<br /><br />The text also says that no one shall have special "emoluments and privileges from the community" except in return for public service in non-hereditary offices.<br /><br />Governmental power is vested in the people and amenable to them, their representatives being their servants. The people have a right to reform or abolish the government if it does not perform its function of "producing the greatest degree of happiness and safety."<br /><br />The document sanctions elected legislative and executive branches for Virginia, as well as an additional judicial branch. All men with sufficient interest in the community have a right to vote and cannot be taxed without their consent or the consent of their representatives.<br /><br />Law-enforcement decisions shall be made only at the consent of the representatives of the people. The text affirms the right to a fair trial by a jury of one's peers and right to freedom of the press. There should be a well-regulated militia, not a standing army, and the military should be subordinated to civil authority.<br /><br />Freedom can be maintained only by a society that adheres to the virtues (justice, moderation, temperance, frugality) and keeps a hold of fundamental moral principles. All men have a right to practice religion according to their conscience and a duty "to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity."Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-91844599065288415902008-03-24T18:14:00.000-07:002011-06-27T20:30:21.261-07:00Edmund Burke, Speech on Conciliation with the Colonies, March 1775 (I.1.2)America is aggrieved by the English government's having deprived it of its self-government, its right to conduct trade, and right to representative and just taxation. Burke, noted for cherishing ordered liberty, understands this and the possibility of violence it implies. He speaks to parliament in effort to mend the rift. It is just a month before the hostilities at Lexington and Concord.<br /><br />"In this character of Americans, a love of freedom is the predominating factor...," he says. Its English origins account for this predominance, as well as for its being particularly bound up with the issue of taxation rather than other issues germane to freedom. The fact that American government is deeply representative of the populous also accounts for the American penchant for freedom, as do the Protestant religion in the north which loathes government control, and the slavery-based society in the south which harbors a palpable contempt for unfree people. Americans' high level of legal education make them zealous and able advocates of their rights. And the remoteness of America from the English government has also contributed its spirit of freedom.<br /><br />Burke argues that the English government's position that America may be deprived of its liberty is inconsistent with the English principles of liberty to which it is committed. He points out that, given the vehemence of American's devotion to their liberties, the alternative to reconciliation is likely to be the far less appealing one of violence.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6620448858234058395.post-71181279145424658152008-03-22T15:10:00.000-07:002008-03-26T21:44:55.279-07:00Continental Congress, Declaration and Resolves, 1774 (I.1.1)Deputies from all of the colonies, except for Georgia, met in Philadelphia in the fall of 1774, issuing a declaration of their resistance to the "intolerable" <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intolerable_Acts">Coercive Acts</a>. These were essentially a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Government_Act">usurpation of the Massachusetts government</a>, a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administration_of_Justice_Act">deprivation of criminal justice authority</a> there, and a harsh economic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Port_Act">punishment of Boston</a> for the Tea Party. A <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Act">centralization of the Quebec government and land-grab of the northwestern frontier</a> also was resented by Americans.<br /><br />This first Continental Congress resolves that the colonists have rights to "life, liberty, and property," and have always had these, since the time of colonization. (It's still "English liberty," not human liberty in this text.) The right to give oneself law is necessary to the other rights, and the colonists therefore resented the Crown's intrusions. The text maintains rights to trial by one's peers and to peaceable assembly and petition of grievances. Infringement of these rights by the Crown is slavery. The Crown's arbitrary imposition of unreasonable taxes (as a means of collecting revenue to satisfy its enormous debt) is intolerable.<br /><br />The Continental Congress resolved not to import or consume English goods, or to export to England. A Continental Association <a href="http://www.usconstitution.net/assocart.html">implemented</a> the enforcement of these resolves at the local level, getting under way by December. The first Continental Congress: a sort of first U.S. government, yet still true to the Crown, the English constitution, and English liberty.Jim Ryanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00053203362792999895noreply@blogger.com