The Ratification Debate Part Three

Concluding my three part series in celebration of our nation’s 235^th Birthday, we will look at arguments advanced by both sides.  Last week we ended with the question, who were the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists and why does it matter to us today?  This week we will learn the answers to the questions.  Who was debating?  What did they have to say?  Who won?  And, why does it matter to us today?

The Federalist Papers

The Federalist Papers are a collection of eighty five essays published in New York newspapers.  They outline how the government, as proposed in the Constitution, would operate and why this highly centralized type of government was the best for the United States of America. All of the essays were signed by "PUBLIUS." To this day there is some dispute as to who authored some of the articles.  However, after much study the consensus is generally believed that Alexander Hamilton wrote fifty two, James Madison wrote twenty eight, and John Jay wrote five.

Just as in every state, the debate over the ratification of the Constitution was intensely followed by the public in New York. Immediately after the conclusion of the Convention, the Constitution came under intense criticism in many New York newspapers. Echoing the sentiments of several of the prominent men who had been delegates to the Convention some contributors to the newspapers said the Constitution diluted the rights Americans had fought for and won in the recent Revolutionary War.

As one of the leading designers and loudest proponents of the Constitution Alexander Hamilton worried that the document might fail to be ratified in his home state of New York.   Therefore, Hamilton, a well trained and well spoken lawyer, decided to write a series of essays refuting the critics and pointing out how the new Constitution would in fact benefit Americans.  In the Convention Hamilton had been the only New York delegate to sign the Constitution after the other New Yorkers walked out of the Convention, because they felt the document being crafted was injurious to the rights of the people.

Hamilton was in favor of a strong central government having proposed to the Convention a president elected for life that had the power to appoint state governors. Although these autocratic ideas were thankfully left out of the finished document Hamilton knew that the Constitution, as written, was much closer to the kind of government he wanted than the one which then existed under the Articles of Confederation.

Hamilton’s first essay was published October 27, 1787 in the New York Independent Journal signed by "Publius." At that time the use of pen names was a common practice. Hamilton then recruited James Madison and John Jay to contribute essays that also used the pen name "Publius."

James Madison, as a delegate from Virginia, took an active role participating as one of the main actors in the debates during the Convention.  In addition he also kept the most detailed set of notes and personally drafted much of the Constitution.

John Jay of New York had not attended the Convention.  He was a well known judge and diplomat.  He was in fact a member of the government under the Articles currently serving as the Secretary of Foreign Affairs.

"Publius" wrote All eighty five essays that were written and published between October 1787 and August 1788, in newspapers of the state of New York.  But their popularity, readership, and impact were not limited to New York. They were in such great demand that they were soon published in a two volume set.
The Federalist essays, also known as the Federalist Papers, have served two distinct purposes in American history.  Primarily the essays helped persuade the delegates to the New York Ratification Convention to vote for the Constitution.  In later years, The Federalist Papers have helped scholars and other interested people understand what the writers and original supporters of the Constitution sought to establish when they initially drafted and campaigned for ratification.

Knowing that the Federalist Papers were written by such luminaries as Hamilton, the first Secretary of the Treasury; James Madison, the fourth President of the United States; and John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the question asked is, who were these Anti-Federalists who dared speak against the founding of the greatest nation that has ever existed:  Some fringe people who didn’t want the blessing of truth, justice, and the American way?!

The Anti-Federalist Papers

The list of Anti-Federalist leaders included: George Mason, Edmund Randolph, Elbridge Gerry, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, and even though he was not in the country at the time, Thomas Jefferson.

There is one major difference between the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers: the former are compact and relatively unified the latter are not really a single series of articles written by a united group with a single purpose as the Federalist Papers were. Instead there were many different authors and they were published all over the country in pamphlets and flyers as well as in newspapers.  Among the many the most important are: John DeWitt- Essays I-III, The Federal Farmer- Letters I and II, Brutus Essays I-XVI, Cato, Letters V and VII.

The first of the Anti-federalist essays was published on October 5, 1787 in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer.  This was followed by many more published throughout the country which charged that any new government formed under the auspices of the Constitution would:

·         Be injurious to the people because it lacked of a bill of rights.

·         Discriminate against the South with regard to navigation legislation.

·         Give the central government the power to levy direct taxation.

·         Lead to the loss of state sovereignty.

·         Represent aristocratic politicians bent on promoting the interests of their own class

The Federalists had the momentum from the beginning.  They were wise enough to appropriate the name Federalist, since federalism was a popular and well understood concept among the general public even though their position was the opposite of what the name implied.  They also had the support of most of the major newspapers and a majority of the leading men of wealth if not of all the original revolutionary patriots.  They also used a tactic of trying to rush the process as much as possible calling for conventions and votes with all dispatch.  And in the end these tactics combined with the great persuasion of the Federalist Letters and the prestige of General Washington carried the day. The Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788.

Although the anti-Federalists lost their struggle against the ratification of the Constitution their spirited defense of individual rights, personal liberty, and their deep-rooted suspicion of a central governmental power became and remain at the core American political values.  Their insistence upon the absolute necessity of the promise of enumerated rights as a prerequisite for ratification established the Bill of Rights as the lasting memorial to their work.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

The Ratification Debate Part Two

Picking up where I left off in my review of the ratification debate I want to address the question I raised at the end of last week’s essay, “What was the problem?”

If the government as established under the Articles had so many successes how did it end up being replaced by the government as established under the Constitution?

There were some perceived and actual weaknesses of the government as established under the Articles of Confederation:

·         The national government was too weak as compared to the State governments.

·         There was only a unicameral legislature and thus there was not a separate executive department to carry out and enforce the acts of Congress.

·          There was no national court system to interpret the meaning of the laws passed by Congress leaving them open to differing interpretations.

·         .Congress didn't have the power to levy taxes. It was instead dependent on State donations, which were levied on the basis of the value of land within the various states.

·         Congress did not have the exclusive right to coin money. Each state retained the right to coin money.  Without a uniform monetary system the coins of one state might not be accepted in another, hampering commerce.

·         There was no mechanism to adjudicate disputes between the states.

·         The Individual States were not precluded from having their own foreign policies including the right to make treaties.

·         Each State had one vote in Congress with no respect to size or population.

·         It required nine out of the thirteen states to approve the passage of major laws, approve treaties, or declare war.

·         The amendment process was cumbersome requiring a unanimous vote.

Some of these weaknesses caused actual problems during the Articles short tenure, and some were merely perceived as possible sources of problems in the future.

So how did we get from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution?

It was commerce that proved to be the catalyst for the transition between the Articles and the Constitution.

Disputes concerning navigation on the Potomac River between Maryland and Virginia led the calling of a conference between five states at Annapolis, Maryland, in 1786.  Alexander Hamilton was one of the delegates.  He successfully convinced the delegates that these issues of commerce were too intertwined with primarily economic and political concerns to be properly addressed by representatives of only five states.  Instead he proposed that all of the states send representatives to a Federal Convention the following year in Philadelphia.  At first Congress was opposed to this plan However, when they learned that Virginia would send George Washington they approved of the meeting.  Elections of delegates were subsequently held in all of the States except Rhode Island which ignored the summons.
The Convention had been authorized by Congress merely to draft proposals for amendments to the Articles of Confederation.  However, as soon as it convened they decided on their own to throw the Articles aside and instead create a completely new form of government.
Was the writing of the Constitution legal?  Who gave the Federal Convention authority to discard the Articles of Confederation which had been duly ratified by all thirteen States?  Was this a counterrevolution?
The answers to these questions have been debated by historians and constitutional scholars for hundreds of years, but in reality the answers are moot.  Whether the Federal Convention had any legal sanction to do what they did doesn’t matter. The action was eventually accepted by the Congress, the ratification conventions were held in the various States, and eventually it was ratified becoming the supreme law of the land.
Now we are ready to look at the Great Debate between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists.
First, what about the terms, “Federalist” and “Anti-Federalist” how appropriate were they during the debate?
New Speak is nothing new in politics, and the concept of words having power to shape reality was not invented by George Orwell.  Look at the original debate of the ratification of the Constitution, and as a consequence how we have studied, learned, and even shaped the debate in this lecture concerning the ratification of the Constitution.
Think about the central term itself. Federalism refers to decentralized government. Those who supported the Constitution, who advocated that it replace the Articles of Confederation, which if nothing else established a decentralized system of government, called themselves "Federalists," even though they wanted a more centralized government.  This left the supporters of the Articles, who wanted a decentralized government, to be known then and forever as the "Anti-Federalists," when in fact they were the true Federalists.
So much for the straight forward clarity of Historical fact, everything must be examined and everything interpreted.
In the study of the debate for the ratification of the Constitution a common mistake made is the shallowness of the study.  In a good school the average student will be exposed to perhaps two of the Federalist Letters and none of the Anti-Federalist Letters, which is like trying to understand an answer without knowing what the question was.  In this abbreviated look at the subject we will look at both sides in general seeking instead an overview of the topic leaving the specifics to a personal study, which will without a doubt enrich the understanding of any who find the motivation for such an endeavor.
The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers were actually published as newspaper articles for the general public.  This in itself tells us much about the comparative state of public education and awareness between the American general public in the late Eighteenth Century and the early Twenty-first.  When we examine the two sets of papers and dwell upon the vocabulary and the breadth and depth of the philosophical, political, and economical ideas expressed we are immediately struck by the fact that the average person in America today would not be able to understand the sophisticated and specialized vocabulary let alone grasp the ideas.  And yet these were not published in journals for the educated elite. These were published in general circulation newspapers and were actually debated and referenced across the dinner tables and around the workshops of America.
Next week we will look deeper into these two sets of documents that have had such a profound effect upon America and find out exactly who the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were and why does it matter to us today?

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens drrobertowens@hotmail.com  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

The Ratification Debate Part One

While it is not my usual routine to write articles in a series, in honor of our nation’s 235^th birthday I want to take some time to examine the process that led to the ratification of the Constitution.  Therefore, each of the next three weeks I will post one installment of a short refection on the ratification debate.

Context:

To understand the debate over the ratification of the Constitution it is necessary to first establish the context, for the study of a text without a context is a pretext.

Was the Constitution the first document produced to form the United States of America?  Does it mark the beginning of our nation and its government?

No, before there was a Constitution there was a United States of America.  This nation was not formed under the auspices of the Constitution the Constitution was formed under the Auspices of the United States.

Years before there was a Constitution there were the Articles of Confederation and it was at the final ratification of this document that the United States of America officially was born.  This often over-looked and much maligned document was drafted in 1777 by the same Continental Congress that passed and proclaimed the Declaration of Independence.  The Articles acknowledged the inherent sovereignty of the constituent States while at the same time establishing a league of friendship and perpetual union.

The Articles of Confederation:

The Articles of Confederation were written, debated and ratified during the Revolutionary War when the States were fighting for their lives against the overbearing Imperial government intent upon reducing all of them to mere appendages of the London based bureaucracy.  In consequence, they reflect the lack of confidence felt in any highly centralized state power.  The States were jealous of their ability to control their internal affairs.  These privileges had been won in various ways in the different States but in each of them they had gained the authority of custom and Tradition.  And in every State they were held dear and looked upon as necessary for a free and prosperous nation.  Therefore the Articles while creating a central government that could address such issues as war and peace most of the actual power was reserved to the individual States.

The maintenance of the sovereignty, freedom and independence of the individual States was facilitated by the fact that under the Articles there was no Executive or Judicial branches in the central government only a legislature and that consisted of only one house.  This one house Congress was composed of committees of delegates appointed by the States.  Congress was charged with the responsibility to prosecute the Revolution, declare war, maintain the Army and Navy, establish relations with other government, send and receive ambassadors and other functions such as establish policies for any territories acquired that were not under State control.

In the depths of war the Articles of Confederation were adopted by the Second Continental Congress on November 15, 1777. The Articles actually became the official and original organic document establishing the government of the United States of America on March 1, 1781 when Maryland, the last of the thirteen states ratified the document.

Today we reap the fruits of the reality that winners write history.  For two hundred plus years we have all been taught that the Articles of Confederation were an abject failure.  We are lectured on the fact that they did not have the power to create or sustain a viable nation.  It is common knowledge that if they would have continued in force there would have been wars between the states and a dysfunctional economy.

Yes, this is what we are taught.  This is what every school child for ten generations has learned as the bedrock of civics and the study of American politics and History.  But does the accepted History fit the facts?

What were some of the accomplishments of the Articles of Confederation?

·         The government of the United States was established under the Articles not the Constitution. 

·         The government as established under the Articles successfully fought and won the Revolutionary War 

·         The government as established under the Articles concluded the peace which gained not only the independence of the thirteen original colonies but all the land east of the Mississippi River and south of Canada. 

·         The government as established under the Articles established diplomatic relations with the rest of the world and worked successfully to get the new United States of America recognized as an independent nation. 

·         The government as established under the Articles negotiated our first treaty with a foreign power (France).

·         The government as established under the Articles led all the States to renounce their claims to the western lands.

·         The government as established under the Articles passed the Land Ordinance of 1785 which provided for the survey and sale of the western lands surrendered by the original thirteen states. These sales provided income for the new nation without taxation

·          The government as established under the Articles through the set aside of land established federal support for a public education system.

·         The government as established under the Articles passed the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 which provided the process through which every subsequent State after the original thirteen became States, with full equality with the original States.

·         The government as established under the Articles outlawed slavery in the Northwest Territory.

·         The government as established under the Articles passed a bill of rights that protected the settlers of territories from abuses of power.

This is a very long list of positive accomplishments for a government that is portrayed as an abject failure.  This brings us to the question, “What was the problem?” a question I will address next week.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College.  He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net  Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

We Can Do This Unless We Don’t

If Alfred E. Newman with his “What me worry?” grin was President of the United States he couldn’t do a more pathetic imitation of leadership than we are currently witnessing in Chicago on the Potomac.

Dismissing the easy visuals of an out-of-touch Imperial President such as:

• Playing golf more in two years than Bush did in eight. With over seventy rounds of eighteen holes in 2.5 years and more that eleven weekends in a row this year it makes one wonder if he’s practicing up for a second career perhaps taking Tiger Woods place once he leaves the White House.

• The 2010 decision to skip the wreath laying ceremony at Arlington to make a pilgrimage to his political Mecca by the Lake,

• Joking about the failure of the 800+ billion dollar stimulus with his cronies at the ironically named Jobs Council when he quipped with his usual uh … uh … off-script eloquence and profundity, “Shovel-ready was not as … uh .. shovel-ready as we expected.”

These types of politically tone-deaf blunders are merely the insensitive actions of a self-indulgent prima donna on his way to a Jimmy Carter style one-term ejection and should surprise no one. When you hire a novice to do a master-craftsman’s job don’t be surprised when the paint peels or the wood warps.

However, President Obama, even with the debt exploding, the economy imploding and his poll numbers in free fall has a glimmer of hope for a surprise re-election commonly known as the Republican Party.

The re-treaded leadership in the House, which the new Tea Party majority-makers allowed to continue even after they handed the momentum back to the Progressives with the Lame-Duck Deal, seem determined to hand Mr. Obama a second term. How can this be? One continuing resolution after another, a budget deal trading a real 1.6 trillion dollar deficit for phantom cuts, re-affirmation of the liberty-smothering Patriot Act, the soon-to-be vote to raise the debt limit, and the political hacks that pass for conservative leaders will prove it’s business as usual for the two-headed bird of prey that is America’s party of power.

The GOP needs the energy and votes of the Tea Party to win. With a record of caving to the Progressives who will rally round the Republican flag? Then there is the coming nominee. Who will it be? Will it be someone who could fire up the rank-and-file or will it be another in the long line of “It’s My Turn” RHINOs that the Party sets up to get knocked down? Will Romney be the next McCain, the next Dole, or the next George H. W. Bush? Will a Huntsman or a Pawlenty garner enough votes of Democrats voting in Republican primaries and thus win a plurality of the votes as McCain did?

Does the party of Reagan have the courage to nominate someone like Ron Paul who has the record to prove he stands by his limited-government positions? Do the people who want their constitutionally limited government back have the sense to ignore the drone of the Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media and refuse to allow them to succeed in their efforts to make Sarah Palin over into anything but the winner she is? Do they have the foresight to draft Chris Christie and demand that he run? In other words do the Republicans have the political integrity to actually run a conservative or will they stick with the same old lackluster Progressive Lite that has spelled doom in the past?

President Obama is eminently beatable. His successes: healthcare and financial reform were shoved through over the determined resistance of the American public. His expansion of the wars and his support for the Arab Spring which is code for Islamist take-over has eroded our security. His religious adherence to the Cloward-Piven Plan to collapse the economy as a means to fundamentally transform America has brought us to the brink of financial disaster. And his in-your-face golf-while-Washington-burns party at the end of the age lifestyle has made him vulnerable to any candidate who will actually stand for everything the President is against.

The President may say he isn’t on the campaign trail but it would be more accurate to say he has never left the campaign trail except for weekends of golf, luxury vacations, and celebrity parties. While he was far too busy running for the presidency and miss-managing the country for two years to release a reasonable facsimile of a birth certificate he always has time for important things like the Oprah Show or jetting across the country to glad hand donors.

We all know the President is an excellent campaigner, which according to himself was one of his chief qualifications for becoming President. With his 2012 campaign headquartered in his adopted home of Chicago, the home of vote procurement procedures, and his goal to raise and spend one billion dollars there should be no doubt that his will be an energetic and effective campaign.

He may have the organization and he may have the money; however, what is the President’s strategy to overcome his record as the first President since Jimmy Carter determined to manage the decline of America instead of working to ensure its continued success? How is he to convince the great majority of Americans that his program of reckless spending, apology tours, abandoning friends and embracing enemies is deserving of another four years? The short answer is he can’t, and so he won’t.

President Obama, aided and abetted by the Progressive Media will pretend the economy is recovering or that prosperity is just around the corner. They will tell the voters we can’t change horses in the middle of the stream. The storyline will be, “You may be out of a job and waiting to be foreclosed on but it could be worse and it’s getting better.” I predict this has about as much chance of working as convincing a Steve Jobs worshipping Apple Devotee that a PC really is better. So what’s the President going to do?

I believe his only chance for a second term is to either use the media and primary cross-voters to help the Republicans nominate the next “It’s my turn” loser or to split the conservative vote. The Progressive Media will do all they can to promote a like-minded left-wing RHINO ala-McCain, but if the Tea Party wing has enough juice to nominate Ron Paul or Michelle Bachmann or enough power to draft Palin or Christie I predict there will be a pseudo conservative third party candidate even if the DNC has to finance it.

Four more years of managed decline without a re-election to restrain him and President Obama’s transformational vision of America as just another country may become more than just the content of his latest apology or the lesson taught to our children in public schools. It may become the shabby reality we will have to endure and the shameful remnant we leave to our grandchildren. We must stay united, stay focused, and work together for the restoration of America. We can’t let divisions divide us anymore. We can do this unless we don’t.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

America A Greek Tragedy

After years of policies expanding the national government until it employed 1/3 of the workforce and expanding their social welfare net into a hammock for those who chose not to work the International Monetary Fund (IMF) demanded that Greece impose a budget that the unions saw as austere. For weeks riots raged, buildings burned and people died. Greece having cast their freedom into the wind is reaping the whirlwind. By seeking to make everyone equal and to ensure that no one failed they have placed their entire nation in risk of failing.
After massive bailouts from their EU partners and the United States the Greek problem seemed to go away. Now it’s back and our generous President has offered to borrow money from China to bail-out Greece once again. As all the Progressive Internationalists scurry to keep Greece from swirling down the drain we shouldn’t fall for the illusion. Systems like this don’t work no matter how hard people try to keep the house of cards from collapsing.

Our turn is coming soon.

Even though we are the largest single contributor to the IMF they have recently issued a stern rebuke to The United States. This rebuke stated that in order to meet goals previously promised we would have to implement austerity measures that would be tougher than any since records began in 1960. Yet instead of austerity or even fiscal sanity our leaders, the same ones who have led us into not only mortgaging the farm but mortgaging the kids and the grandkids are acting as the cheerleaders and hand-wringers for the ritualistic rise in the debt limit.

In the last round of the serial continuing resolutions, the one that ended in the Republican House surrendering to the White House and passing the bloated 2011 budget we were told there would be massive cuts. This would be truly historic, 38 billion dollars in cuts. This was so substantial it would only leave a record yearly deficit of 1.6 trillion. There was joy in the House as they took a victory lap beating their chests for holding out for the BIG money.

Then we learn the president and his staff of Chicago trained slight-of-hand bean counters had cooked the books, took credit for laying off people who were already laid off and presto-change-o the massive 38 billion was actually 352 million. This is still a massive amount of money but in the rarified air our high flying government budget it doesn’t quite qualify as chump change. This isn’t the change anyone was hoping for when we changed the chumps back in November of 2010.

This breath-taking cut still left the spending for 2011 more than 773 Billion above 2008 levels and thus President Obama was forced to agree to stealth stimulus almost as big as the one in 2009 that put America back to work, at least in Democrat campaign commercials. And while every one of the serial continuing resolutions was reported with great fanfare as cutting the budget according to the Treasury the 2011 budget deficit actually increased by 15.7% in the first six months of fiscal 2011. In other words the more these leaders who are so concerned about cutting the deficit cut the bigger the deficit grows.

All of this looting of the American economy has a tremendously high price. While no one will ever know what didn’t happen because of the government crowding private capital out and soaking up all the time and energy required to make it through their red-tape bureaucratic maze we see the crippling effects every day.

Although the officials in charge of the silly statistics department tell us there is no inflation even though they are printing money 24/7 as fast as the presses can go inflation is actually nearing 10%, which anyone who lives in the real world and has to buy food or gas knows. And our once free economy is now in the hands of a Federal Government that has no limits and a gaggle of mega-banks that for all intents and purposes should be re-classified as government-backed.

Now the drums are beating for the Progressive Federal Government to bail out the Progressives who have destroyed our once great cities. As Detroit begins to revitalize by surrendering entire communities to the gangs and bull-doze abandoned buildings the same thinking that picked America’s pocket to bail-out the crony capitalists is gearing up to prop up the culture of decline on the local level so the local level will deliver the votes in 2012. This is nothing more than vote buying and money laundering on a grand scale.

This gamesmanship has done nothing to reign in the uncontrolled spending of our unlimited Federal Behemoth. Even the politically blind are beginning to see that this profligate spending is unsustainable. Unless we embrace the austerity needed to right our ship of state we will flounder on the shoals of self-indulgence which have been the death-bed of empires since Nimord tried to build a tower. And if we continue to mortgage the lives of those who have not yet been born we will end up losing the deeds to the lives we think we own.

So, no matter what the teleprompter readers tell us at the end of the day the Republican majority in the House will go along with their Progressive pals and raise the debt limit. And no matter what they say about trillions of dollars of cuts, off in the future and over the rainbow, the deficits will continue and the debt will grow.

Come on Charlie Brown kick the football Lucy promised she won’t move it this time.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

Positively Negative

The Corporations Once Known as the Mainstream Media constantly trumpets the claim that President Obama was a Professor of Constitutional Law. And when he was campaigning he charged that President Bush was not respecting the Constitution when he fired eight prosecutors saying, “I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution.”
In this long over looked quote from a radio interview a Pre-President Obama laments the negative liberties he sees as a flaw in the Constitution and waxes eloquent in defense of the redistribution of wealth and the positive power of an intrusive welfare state.

“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.”

Unfortunately for this radical interpretation, liberty is a negative. Personal liberty is always and only possible when and where external control stops. We have the liberty to think as we wish because no one can control or even know our true inner thoughts. We do not have the liberty to steal; society has placed limits on that action which are enforced by external control. The Framers of our Constitution knew this which explains why our foundational document includes restrictions on the power of government not restrictions on individuals. Unless governmental control over the individual was limited there would be no liberty.

This has been common knowledge in our Republic since John Hancock signed his John Hancock and we declared to the world that the United States of America was going to be something different. We were determined to break free of the entangling state control stifling the monarchies of Europe. We would be a new type of nation where individual liberty, opportunity, and free enterprise would unleash the pent-up creativity and ingenuity would make real the genius of a free people. However, over the years many have fallen asleep, lulled into a trance by the prosperity and security this freedom from state control has fostered.

Slowly the knowledge of what gave vent to this prosperity and security has been lost and generations of Americans have been taught by state schools that free enterprise is evil and state paternalism is good. Generations have been bred to see governmental support, direction, and control as necessary and proper. They have ingested the poison of dependence metastasizing the debilitating life on the dole to the point where they see their continued receipt of stolen goods as an entitlement. So many have fallen for the licentious materialistic hedonism masquerading as life in a post-modern America that when asked, “What is the American Dream?” many will reply “To own your own home.” A response and a belief which made the congressionally mandated Fannie/Freddie induced housing bubble possible if not inevitable.

This shows the negative results of the positive reinforcement of materialism over intellectualism. The correct response to the question, “What is the American Dream?” is Individual liberty and opportunity. Once this was common knowledge among an engaged American public who realized that no one fought and died to own a home, people owned homes in America before the revolution. It was freedom that was the object of the Revolution and it is the individual liberty and opportunity that freedom enables that is the American dream. And today in America this individual liberty and opportunity has now become the object of ridicule in schools pushing a green agenda and a socialist future. The demand for a return to individual liberty and opportunity has become the disparaged slogan on signs at Tea Parties.

Our leaders have embraced instead the idea of “Positive Liberty” which is an oxymoron. By this they mean that the state should actively intervene in the lives of people to provide them with all that is necessary for lives lived as the leaders think they should be. What they are really New Speaking of is Socialism disguised as democracy. However, the increase of governmental power over people does not equate to liberty it equates to serfdom and only the progressive newspeak of a post-modern America could call this decrease of freedom an increase of liberty or democracy.

Alexis de Tocqueville said, “Democracy extends the sphere of individual freedom socialism restricts it. Democracy attaches all possible value to each man; socialism makes each man a mere agent a mere number. Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word: equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.”



This positive liberty is the handmaiden of the other new positive that our progressive leaders wish to foist upon us: positive equality. The real equality, the one our ancestors fought and died for is equality of opportunity which is a negative, forcing the government stays out of the way and the people go as far as their investment of time, talent and treasure can take them. In our new progressive world government is supposed to act to create an equality of outcome so that all are equal all the time. This type of collective equality is to be advanced and protected by the all powerful state pushing down some, lifting others until all are equal at all times. This equality of outcome becomes an unlimited reality that is conceived of as the goal of society. Unfettered democracy defined as the participation of all in the political process either as rulers, dispensers or consumers becomes not only the goal but the means and the end in and of itself.

Thus our Constitutional Scholar-in-Chief is leading us step by step away from the individual liberty and opportunity that are the guardians of the American Dream and into a negative representation of our positive values. With another four years this administration will succeed in fundamentally transforming America.

One last quote from Alexis de Tocqueville "The American Republic will endure, until politicians realize they can bribe the people with their own money."

PS: Don’t take the bribe.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.

History Doesn't Repeat It Rhymes

A series of imperial wars fought by the Kings of England culminating in the French and Indian War almost bankrupted England. At the end of the war England was paying to maintain 10,000 troops in the North American colonies as well as fleets to protect America’s maritime trade.
Americans had fought in the war including the first shots fired, under George Washington at Fort Necessity in Ohio. With the people of England already restive under crushing taxes, the English politicians decided they would tax the American colonists to help pay off the massive war debt and to bear the cost of the colonies future defense.

First they tried the Stamp Act requiring the use of approved or stamped government-issued paper for all legal documents such as will, deeds and diplomas. This brought our ancestors out into the streets. They marched in protest. The Governor of New York, where the first shipment of officially stamped paper was to arrive, was burned in effigy. They attacked the home of a British officer who had boasted he would collect the stamp tax by force of arms if necessary. The Americans organized the states to act in unison calling the Stamp Act Congress to coordinate a boycott and to decide upon other measures of resistance to “Taxation without representation.” In the face of this heroic opposition the British Government repealed the Stamp Act.

By this time the level of taxation in England produced riots and political turmoil, so the government once again tried to balance the budget on the backs of the Americans with the Townsend Acts. These Acts included reprisals for the recent resistance to the Stamp Act such as: restraints upon the colonial assemblies, new courts to enforce the laws, troops quartered in private homes, and once again taxes, custom fees, and import duties enforced by the British military.

Once again our ancestors stood against the tyranny of taxation without representation and eventually forced the British to also repeal these offensive measures. Not giving up on the idea of raising the money they needed from the colonies these disconnected leaders, far removed from the people, next passed the Tea Act. This Act was designed to help the English East India Company avoid bankruptcy by giving them a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies.

The Company was able to sell at a lower price including the required tax than any tea smuggled in without the tax. The British reasoned the Americans would willingly pay the tax if they were able to pay it and still get tea for a lower price than without it. But they reckoned without the strength of our principles. This was still taxation without representation and our ancestors would have none of it.

When two ships arrived in Boston Harbor filled with the Company’s tea Samuel Adams vowed it would never be unloaded. Adams held a series of public meetings in the Old South Meeting House. Not able to fit in the building, crowds as large as 5,000 filled the surrounding streets. They demanded that the ships leave. When the agents of the Company refused Adams led a group of men, disguised as Mohawk Indians, to Griffin’s Wharf. The vessels were boarded; the Patriots took the cargo of 342 chests, and threw them into the harbor to the encouragement of a cheering crowd on the dock. This “Tea Party” was repeated in other ports throughout America.

Taxation without representation was the burden too evil to bear for our ancestors. They faced tax burdens that never neared 1 or 2 % and we, their descendants, meekly line up to pay many times that to a government which no longer hears us as we petition them in every way we know to stop the over-the-top spending and return to financial reality.

Today many have forgotten that the “TEA” in the modern Tea Party stands for “Taxed Enough Already!” Millions express frustration and the belief that our elected representatives no longer pay any attention to us once they get to Washington. Our newly elected conservative majority joins the insider parade reaffirming the Patriot Act and passing continuing resolution after continuing resolution. Are we about to learn that if History doesn’t exactly repeat itself it sure does rhyme?

To a generation who have watched our beloved nation fall from the greatest creditor to the greatest debtor, from the greatest manufacturer to an open market for Chinese expansion “Taxed Enough Already” and “No Taxation Without Representation” are starting to sound close enough for blank verse.

Dr. Owens teaches History, Political Science, and Religion for Southside Virginia Community College. He is the author of the History of the Future @ http://drrobertowens.com View the trailer for Dr. Owens’ latest book @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ypkoS0gGn8 © 2011 Robert R. Owens dr.owens@comcast.net Follow Dr. Robert Owens on Facebook.