A Look at our Founders' Beliefs in Light of Today's Politics

The Federalist Papers

On this 4th of July 2012, with nothing better to do on our national holiday, I have been reviewing selected statements from the writings of our founding fathers. Many of the statements in this post will leap off the page at you if you have your eyes wide open to the strife swirling about us in this election season. Do not become discouraged. Do not fear the future. Put into its proper perspective with a healthy dose of hindsight to guide our thinking, contention and opposition has forever been part of our political process, and will be forever as long as free men agree to disagree agreeably in the end.

George Washington

America is astoundingly resilient as these quotes will demonstrate, but first to a bit of history to put it all in a framework everyone can understand.

The Federalist Party was the first American political party, from the early 1790s to 1816, the era of the First Party System. George Washington abhorred the thoughts of his infant republic being torn asunder by partisan bickering, and remained independent, but the Federalists controlled the federal government until 1801.

Alexander Hamilton

The party was formed by Alexander Hamilton, who was committed to a fiscally sound and nationalistic government. The United States' only Federalist president was John Adams, who followed Washington as the second POTUS, who was succeeded by Thomas Jefferson.

The Federalists favored a strong national bank, tariffs, and good relations with Britain. Their political opponents, the Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, denounced most of the Federalist policies, especially the bank, and vehemently criticized anyone who expressed remaining sympathy with the British monarchy. The Federalists won most of the major legislative battles in the 1790s. Their supporters were mostly in the nation's cities and in New England. The Democratic-Republicans, drew support from the rural South, and Jefferson eventually won the ugly and nasty election of 1800, defeating his lifelong friend John Adams, whose party never returned to power.

One thing leaps out as you read these excerpts, primarily from Hamilton and Madison: Despite their differences in the beliefs of their respective parties, both men believed the ultimate power of America rested with THE PEOPLE, and each gives us ample justification for taking steps to correct any form of tyranny that may arise. They wrote their essays along with Chief Justice John Jay to promote the ratification of the Constitution, and each in his writings gave us the intellectual arguments sufficient to change the government if it were ever to encroach upon our freedoms. As you read, don't be surprised if you learn how prophetic their writings have become!

John Adams

The Federalists left a lasting legacy of a strong new government with a sound financial base, and simultaneously Chief Justice John Marshall decisively shaped the Supreme Court policies for another three decades.

Today, the ongoing national debate about the relative powers of the federal and the state governments continues. As I write today  state governors, granted the ability to do so in the latest SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Healthcare Act, are pushing back and refusing to implement the expansion of Medicaid under the law because of the enormous financial hardship it imposes. The more things change in America, the more they remain the same, it seems.

Thomas Jefferson

The infant republic survived those tumultuous years, and it is from their writings I was seeking inspiration this morning as we celebrate yet another American birthday. Share with me their prescient awareness of the very threats we face today:

* * *

James Madison

Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the governments of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the old world, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the new, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object.  Madison, Number 45

The States will retain all pre-existing authorities which may not be exclusively delegated to the federal head; and that this exclusive delegation can only exist in one of three cases: where an exclusive authority is, in express terms, granted to the Union; or where a particular authority is granted to the Union and the exercise of a like authority is prohibited to the States; or where an authority is granted to a Union with which a similar authority in the States would be utterly incompatible.  Hamilton, Number 82

It has not a little contributed to the infirmities of the existing federal system that it never had a ratification by the PEOPLE. Resting on no better foundation than the consent of the several legislatures, it has been exposed to frequent and intricate questions concerning the validity of its powers, and has in some instances given birth to the enormous doctrine of a right of legislative repeal. Owing its ratification to the law of a State, it has been contended that the same authority might repeal the law by which it was ratified. However gross a heresy it may be to maintain that a party to a compact has a right to revoke that compact, the doctrine itself has had respectable advocates. The possibility of a question of this nature proves the necessity of laying the foundations of our national government deeper than in the mere sanction of delegated authority. The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.  Hamilton, Number 22

If we resort for a criterion to the different principles on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic. Madison, Number 39

The smallness of the army renders the natural strength of the community an overmatch for it; and the citizens, not habituated to look up to the military power for protection, or to submit to its oppressions, neither love nor fear the soldiery; they view them with a spirit of jealous acquiescence in a necessary evil and stand ready to resist a power which they suppose may be exerted to the prejudice of their rights.

The army under such circumstances may usefully aid the magistrate to suppress a small faction, or an occasional mob, or insurrection; but it will be unable to enforce encroachments against the united efforts of the great body of the people. Hamilton, Number 8

If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government. Hamilton, Number 28

John Jay

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it; nay, that absolute monarchs will often make war when their nations are to get nothing by it, but for purposes and objects merely personal, such as a thirst for military glory, revenge for personal affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives, which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people. John Jay, Number 4

It is in vain to oppose constitutional barriers to the impulse of self-preservation. It is worse than in vain; because it plants in the Constitution itself necessary usurpations of power, every precedent of which is a germ of unnecessary and multiplied repetitions.  Madison, Number 41

Wilful abuses of a public authority, to the oppression of the subject, and every species of official extortion, are offenses against the government, for which the persons who commit them may be indicted and punished according to the circumstances of the case. Hamilton, Number 83

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction. Madison, Number 40

. . . If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning. I answer the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate their respective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people, who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. Madison, Number 44

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose and from which no apprehensions are entertained. Madison, Number 45

There is no position which depends on clearer principles than that every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this would be to affirm that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid. Hamilton, Number 78

The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.

I will add, as a fifth circumstance in the situation of the House of Representatives, restraining them from oppressive measures, that they can make no law which will not have its full operation on themselves and their friends, as well as on the great mass of the society. This has always been deemed one of the strongest bonds by which human policy can connect the rulers and the people together. It creates between them that communion of interests and sympathy of sentiments of which few governments have furnished examples; but without which every government degenerates into tyranny. If it be asked, what is to restrain the House of Representatives from making legal discriminations in favor of themselves and a particular class of the society? I answer: the genius of the whole system; the nature of just and constitutional laws; and, above all, the vigilant and manly spirit which actuates the people of America -- a spirit which nourishes freedom, and in return is nourished by it.

If this spirit shall ever be so far debased as to tolerate a law not obligatory on the legislature, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty. Madison, Number 57

For it is a truth, which the experience of all ages has attested, that the people are commonly most in danger when the means of injuring their rights are in the possession of those of whom they entertain the least suspicion. Hamilton, Number 25

I believe it may be laid down as a general rule that their confidence in and obedience to a government will commonly be proportioned to the goodness or badness of its administration. Hamilton, Number 27

It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system that the State governments will, in all possible contingencies, afford complete security against invasions of the public liberty by the national authority. Hamilton, Number 28

It is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people. Madison, Number 52

No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable.  Madison, Number 62

* * *

HAPPY 4TH OF JULY, AMERICA! NEVER DOUBT WHO YOU ARE!

Federalism And Why It Matters To You

I've been reading a lot of American history this last year. The Federalist Papers are most revealing, along with other writings of our founders. The term "federalism" is one of those slippery terms bandied about in political rhetoric today needing a clear definition if we are to understand why it is relevant today.


Washington at Valley Forge

For forty-five years George Washington gave himself to his country. No one deserves the title "Father of Our Country," more than he. There was an overriding concern, however, that he was still fighting until the day he left office.

Throughout his presidency he was grieved by all the wrangling between the two predominant parties of his day -- the Federalists and the Republicans. He was usually successful in standing above the fray and warned against the divisions infused by the parties into the American fabric at the time, fearing dissolution of the union he had forged so diligently. Here's a sample of his effort to warn his countrymen "in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party. . . The spirit unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. . .

"The alternate domination of one faction over another sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissension. . . is itself a frightful despotism. . . A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume."

We are close to that place, it would seem, where Washington's warning is near fulfillment. He suggested the antidote was morality in government. From his farewell address, we are advised:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness - these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

One searches in vain today for such wisdom. His farewell address was not given as a speech at all. It was drafted first, then sent to his friends, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, for polishing. It was dated September 17, 1796, and subsequently printed two days later in Philadelphia's American Daily Advertiser. He offered it he said, as the parting counsel from "an old and affectionate friend."

Thomas Jefferson

As the new nation under Washington took shape two polarizing points of view emerged. Thomas Jefferson's followers called themselves Republicans. They stood for a true republic of the people. Alexander Hamilton disciples called themselves Federalists, seeking to strengthen the federal Union. Those two simple ideas are the origins of our how the country became divided into two predominant points of view on the role of the federal government. Hamilton deeply believed only a strong national government could rule effectively, and was advocating the idea the common man was incapable of self-rule. Jefferson was a strong proponent of states' rights, while Hamilton was seeking an ever-stronger central government.



Alexander Hamilton

 Before their lives were over, Jefferson and Hamilton became bitter enemies. Each accused the other of trying to destroy the country. The central idea dividing them? Hamilton had some "radical ideas" about fiscal policies. Jefferson saw the establishment of a national bank as simply a way to enrich the few money men behind it, and everything else Hamilton proposed was viewed with the same skepticism by Jefferson, who saw Hamilton's financial practices as harmful to the poor and destructive to the nation's long-term well-being.

Hamilton countered that his policies were essential to a strong national economy. He did not deny a few would be enriched, but saw that outcome as the necessary step to a thriving economy where everyone could become wealthier.

The differences ran deep, and beyond policy they became implacable personal enemies even though Washington repeatedly tried to reconcile them to each other without success. Jefferson finally resigned as Secretary of State at the end of 1793, and a year later Hamilton quit as Secretary of the Treasury.

The core issues separating these two powerful individuals then persist today. The Constitution was established to create two tiers of governing -- one at the federal level, the other at the state level. This was called "federalism," a shared role for each.

Federalism in the United States is still evolving. It attempts to define the proper relationship between state governments and the federal government. American government has evolved from a system of dual federalism to one of associative federalism. In "Federalist No. 46," James Madison asserted that the states and national government "are in fact but different agents and trustees of the people, constituted with different powers." Alexander Hamilton, writing in "Federalist No. 28," suggested that both levels of government would exercise authority to the citizens' benefit: "If their [the peoples'] rights are invaded by either, they can make use of the other as the instrument of redress."

The states established the first level of governance to be formed in this country. Their pre-eminent existence, some would argue today, give them "more rights" than the specific and limited "enumerated powers" spelled out in the Constitution. These include the right to levy taxes, declare war, and regulate interstate and foreign commerce. Also, the "Necessary and Proper Clause" gives the federal government the "implied power" to pass any law "necessary and proper" for the execution of its express powers.

These arguments are the very arguments one hears today in the ongoing attempts to reform health care and other transformative issues. The core issue is shall the states or the federal government be the instrument to decide for the people? Jefferson would have argued for the states and Hamilton would have sided with the federal government.

Powers that the Constitution does not delegate to the federal government or forbid to the states, the "reserved powers," are reserved to the people or the states under the Constitution. Jefferson said, "That government that governs best is closest to the people." Over time, however, the power delegated to the federal government was significantly expanded by the Supreme Court decision in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), subsequent amendments to the Constitution following the Civil War, and by some later amendments. The overall claim of the Civil War, that the states were legally subject to the final dictates of the federal government, had the effect of deferring to a strong federal government in the evolution of federalism and how it is defined today.

The old Hamiltonian Federalist party in the United States was finally dissolved in 1824. They were heavily opposed by the Democratic-Republicans, which included powerful figures such as Thomas Jefferson. The Democratic-Republicans mainly believed:

• The Legislative had too much power (mainly because of the Necessary and Proper Clause) and that they were unchecked.
• The Executive branch had too much power, and that there was no check on him. A dictator would arise.
• A bill of rights for the people should be coupled with the Constitution to prevent a dictator from exploiting citizens. The threat then, as always, is that the Executive could become a dictator.

The Federalists, on the other hand, argued it was impossible to list all the rights, and those that were not listed could be easily overlooked because they were not in the official bill of rights. Rather, rights in specific cases were to be decided by the judicial system of courts.

A larger role and influence for the federal government, however, continued to emerge decades after the Civil War. The reasons included the need to regulate businesses and industries that span state borders, attempts to secure civil rights, and the provision of social services. The federal government acquired no substantial new powers until the acceptance by the Supreme Court of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act in State of Minnesota v. Northern Securities Company.

It is the belief of many today (myself included) that the federal government has grown beyond the bounds permitted by the express and limited powers granted in the Constitution. Opponents to that view think they find some legal latitude among the express powers, such as the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is used by Congress to justify certain federal laws, but its applicability has been narrowing in recent years by Supreme Court rulings.

"Dual federalism" suggests the federal government and the state governments are co-equals, each sovereign. In this theory, parts of the Constitution are interpreted narrowly, such as the Tenth Amendment, the Supremacy Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause, and the Commerce Clause. Under a narrow interpretation, the federal government has jurisdiction only if the Constitution clearly grants it. In this case, there is a large group of powers belonging to the states or the people, and the federal government is limited to only those powers explicitly listed in the Constitution.

To summarize:

We face "ominous challenges" as a nation today. Here's a BYU professor who suggests there are at least five requiring immediate attention by the 112th Congress. There was little in Obama's SOTU address last week to suggest he will take a leadership role in tackling those clear and present dangers lurking on the horizon. He played a large role in creating those challenges with the 111th Congress. It appears, instead, he will play politics as usual, hoping the Republicans by reducing spending make life so miserable for Americans he can ride a wave of displeasure into a second term in 2012, and last long enough without specifically addressing the issues that he might still be popular enough with the people by then to be re-elected. His re-election campaign is launching into high gear now and he'll be on the stump between now and then doing what he does best -- talking and talking and talking and talking.

The arguments debating the meaning of "federalism" today are framed around the concept of "dual federalism," the shared powers and the evolving roles of the federal government and the states. It is my belief it is absolutely essential for Americans to become engaged in the debate using the proper definitions and advocating for states' rights as opposed to further expansion of the role of the federal government. The only question remaining is whether it is too late to finally rein it in. It seems both political parties have expanded federal government, now the question is which one will shrink it, if it can really be "shrunk" at all.

Last week in his press conference following his State of the State address, Governor Gary Herbert here in Utah was mystified by the unilateral imposition of Obamacare upon the states without even so much as a consult with the governors of the various states over the last two years when it was rammed down their throats, and he signaled his adamant opposition to the taking of any more Utah land for federal wilderness and monument designations. The states are on the move to reassert their claims against the monolithic federalism they see as a threat to our existence.

Half the fifty states' attorneys general are now involved in lawsuits to challenge the constitutionality of Obamacare, and the border states of Arizona and Texas are imposing their wills against the federal government's inaction to control the borders.

Henry David Thoreau asserted, though it is often attributed to either Thomas Paine or Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best that governs least."

The polar opposite positions held by Hamilton and Jefferson have played out two hundred plus years later exactly as Hamilton and Jefferson framed the original debate then, and the question is still not settled -- far from it.

A return to Washington's thoughts from his farewell address is sagacious wisdom for America today: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."

Beware of those who would take God out of this equation.