- Hey folks here’s something new and different for everyone’s consideration regarding the restoration of our Constitutional Republic. We have all postulated causes and proposed many solutions to our situation today. What if there’s a cause we’ve never understood existed or acknowledged? What if the system was designed to work on the basis of a universal reality that no longer exists? A cause so fundamental it pre-empts our current list of solutions.In Federalist 10 Madison argued that factions have and will always form, be bad and that the overall design of the system was intended to prevent them from executing any “schemes of oppression”.“Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression.” He went on:“…If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control.”I could take this to mean the system he helped design would in his view unavoidably fail if this were to happen. His solution to dangerous factions was to be found in a large Republic. By extending:“…the sphere and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens…” This observation seems logical. He goes on:“…or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.”Here I’ll suggest is the ‘universal reality that no longer exists’. Global real time communication trumps the plan at its foundation. Read Federalist 10 keeping in mind mankind could not communicate “schemes of oppression” like it can today.Consider the formation of the Tea Party or so called flash mobs or the revolution in Libya. Could these happen on the scale they do today without our ability to communicate our plans and ‘organize’?With this as a principle cause would any of our current proposed solutions work? Think about it.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Sure speed would be a factor. Another would be the mass of communication. Imagine no TV and your understanding of events formed only thru your mail box. Filled only with hand written letters, all copies hand written as well. What was going on inthe next State would easily become a bit murky and require much speculation. Workers of the world unite would be kind tough in that situation I would think.
- Permalink Reply by on
- ok, communications changed things. as has transportation.is it defeating the cause? or making sound natural law principles obsolete?I don't think so, because I don't believe technology advancing changes sound natural law principles.is it making the original governmental design obsolete?I still don't think so, for the same reason.I would think the question comes down to; How do we finally begin using the new technology to support our cause, sound natural law principles, and return effectiveness to the orignal governmental design?As I see it, it has been primarily the bad forces utilizing the advanced technology for it's purposes - and our side's utilization has been minimal. It's not the technology, but the fact that only 1 side has put it to effective use.
- Permalink Reply by on
- The people of the time could read for the most part and there was not much news so it spread a lot faster than you would imagine. The citizens were engaged and one community would then share with another so in days not weeks the entire country would be informed. Look at France it was country wide when they rebelled. The FF knew what was coming to us and said things like the following -A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
Thomas Jefferson
In other words, Americans will be required to take their nation back at some future time from the factions that grouped together and elected a majority that usurped.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Global real time communication trumps the plan at its foundation.
I don't follow how you come to that conclusion, I don't see how the ability to communicate faster in any way affects the basic dynamics of human behavior.
The sentence that follows your last quote of #10: "Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary."Perhaps the pertinent portion of this quote to our discussion being 'where there is a consciousness of..'
Madison continues:
"Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, - is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and to schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments."
With all due respect to Madison, IMHO he goes out on a limb here and asserts an opinion as fact.He continues:
"Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage."
How would the speed of communication affect Mr.Madison's premise?
"The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular country or district, than an entire State."
Now, one may argue the correctness of Mr. Madison's views but to my feeble thinking he suggests that the larger the Republic the greater the security from factions having undue control.
Now, both Jefferson and Madison decried the ills of large urban centers and recommended a geographically dispersed citizenry as the remedy to many ills, including factions, but the meaning of a 'larger Republic' cannot but mean population more-so than geographic size. I fail to see how a more rapid ability to spread info would negate the system put in place by the framers [and I fully acknowledge there is much I fail to see ;) ]. It would seem to me that it is a matter of representation, according to Madison.
Consider the formation of the Tea Party or so called flash mobs or the revolution in Libya. Could these happen on the scale they do today without our ability to communicate our plans and ‘organize’?
No, probably not. But someone in 1775, or 1863, could have posited the same question and the answer would be the same.
I remain firmly convinced that a return to the Senate to represent the States and the House to represent the People to be the best check on factions.
- Permalink Reply by on
- It is happening as we speak - Johnathon Turley Law Professor has accepted the case from the members of Congress suing Obama for violating the Article I section 8 clause 10 - only Congress can declare war. 26 or 34 States are weaving cases of nullification through the courts and one will get to the SCOTUS this year? The usurpers have been found out and now they are being challenged.In Wisconsin they will review the findings that the lower court Judge was found guilty of usurping the Legislatures powers. The Judge exceeded the power of the court and usurped. These Progressives have gone to far and now more and more citizens are questioning the Constitutional powers being usurped by all three branches of the Government. WE can now call this a Constitutional crisis.
- Permalink Reply by on
- the ancient Chinese curse says - may you live in interesting times - and we are in interesting times old friend.You have had your problems with the courts as have I - they cost me several seven digits and I have no way to recover. However Texas is changing the legal system by adopting the rest of the English Common Law - you sue you lose you pay all the attorney fees and the court costs of the winner. We have had a drought and you can see the dust from the Attorneys leaving our State.Yes. I love to see the courts and attorneys brought back into the Constitutional realities. It will be a celebration if it all gets done - hurray?
- Permalink Reply by on
- At least we know that Fox will hold many specials when these issues get to court, IMO many of the others will still be confused about these Constitutional issues? Oh yes, it will be wonderful to see 40 years of effort come to the front and center of the American people. The citizens will understand soon that the political class and the Judges have been usurping and just taking their wealth without authority.The 5th protect us from them re-distributing our wealth - nor bedeprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.How much we win is less important than the "PEOPLE" will become informed of their rights and powers.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Hey all, at some point I’m going to punch holes in my own original observation but before I do I'm going to push it to test its merit (or not).So the basic idea is that Madison briefly remarked that back then there were obvious limits on the ability of local factions of people to communicate plans to take control of things. This of course would be a good thing towards limiting a federal government.Several responses mention or focus on the “speed” of communication. I didn’t think Madison was really talking about speed of communication as much as just the overall inability to communicate. No doubt my use of “real time” and flash mobs had a part in everybody thinking about speed. I did later say I thought the speed of communication ‘could be a factor’.I was more intrigued by this portion of Madison logic. The large (dispersed) Republic by its nature would make it “more difficult for all who feel it [a common interest] to discover their own strength and to act in unison with each other.In other words groups with a common interest couldn’t even become aware of themselves as a common interest group and then “act in unison with each other” on a continuous basis. This is in affect what we are doing right now ourselves.It is because Madison mentioned this a couple of times I wondered if it was part of the plan by default. Something that was true in their day (and history) that they just took for granted. To be sure technology changed that. I wanted to share this because I thought it possibly very important if it has merit and in fact played a role in putting us where we are today.So while we restore the original structure of the Republic (17th etc) should we not also having witnessed “...a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object… to reduce…” us “…under absolute Despotism… provide new Guards for…” our future security?If the ability to communicate played the kind of role Madison suggested it could play and facilitated the “long train of abuses and usurpations” threatening us than we would want to consider doing more than restore the structure of our Constitution. In fact does not our Declaration say it is “our duty”?
- Permalink Reply by on
- IMO large scale social changes have always been started by a small group of thinkers communicating, debating and forming a new paradigm. This started with the Greeks and then the Romans. Man then became involved in determining what human rights were and where they were derived from.The next great change occurred in the time of the Founders by advancing the thinking of Locke, Plato, Aristotle, and many others being molded into new ideas to provide a form of government that protected the individual from oppressive Kings and government in general. The concepts were not new but the structure and application was outside of all thinking up to that point.Now we are again at a fork in the road - do we proceed more toward Progressive - Socialism - Democracy or do we return to our original Constitutional Republic form of government? Today's paper carries an article about Obama going against his own legal staff on the Libya conflict - war or and the necessity of complying with Article I section 8 clause 10 and the War Powers act. The legal staff appears to have advised him he needed approval - he chose to override their advice - this action could be viewed as usurpation.We have 34 States in some form of nullification of laws they feel are unconstitutional and usurp power by Congress and the Executive. One recent case the Wisconsin Union issue and the State Supreme court found the Judge usurped the power of the Legislature and had zero power to interfere. Now this case appears to be headed to the SCOTUS.The heath care bill was passed by usurpation as was many other laws now being questioned and challenged in the Courts. These challenges will bring decisions on the use and application of the COMMERCE CLAUSE and THE NECESSARY AND PROPER CLAUSE. Congress and the executive have used these clauses to usurp in most constitutional thinkers since FDR destroyed the separation of the courts from the executive and legislative branches.We are now, for lack of a better description, find ourselves in a full blownCONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS working it's way through he courts and legislatures of the nation. The people will discover that the extend of the usurpation and will IMO raise up to return the powers t the States as they discover the costs in terms of loss of freedoms. The people will be defended by the States as the Founders intended and again more proof that these were men of exceptional understanding of the human life form and of governments it has created over the generations. As word spread and the feeling of the general population that government has been screwing we the people starts to float to the front pages of news papers and magazines [Blogs] the nation will change quickly.
- Permalink Reply by on
- here is an article on the new federal court suit and it is based on Constitutional issues. You can look back as I posted a link to the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision as it used the word USURPED POWER that the first Judge used to set aside the Legislative act.
- Permalink Reply by on
- Factions in the days of the Colonies were often based on a single religion which controlled the Governor, the Legislatures, and the city governments. so, the 13 colonies were factions. IMO this is one of the reasons that the FF insisted on making freedom of Religion such an important first Amendment item.Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.The FF believed that a free religion and free press would keep the government small and limited. It worked for just a few years before the first usurpation. The people and courts have revoked a very limited number of usurped laws however it appears that many might be removed in the next 10 to 20 years.As more of the citizens become reacquainted with the Constitution and for what it stands the government will placed back into Pandora's box.
No comments:
Post a Comment