Federalist 17 – Revisited
I sincerely doubt that there is a full measure of one percent of the US citizenry (note I did NOT say population) that has read the entirety of our founding documents, or any of the contemporary writing of that time… of their own volition. I’m sure a good number of us were forced to memorize the Preamble to the Constitution or the Declaration of Independence, but other than that, most of us have decidedly avoided reading these precious pieces of history for whatever reason… Presently, and with much embarrassment, I have to count myself in the ignorant majority. It is a current endeavor of mine to remedy the situation. To that end, my current reading assignment is “The Federalist Papers”, written by that well known Patriot of the day, Publius.
What? Who? (Most of the mental gears of the masses just creaked to a halt.)
If you have never read the Federalist Papers (and/or have mentally deleted your American History education) they were a series of articles supporting the ratification of the Constitution. They were written by three men, all preeminent figures in U.S. history, under the one pen name of Publius. Widely published in the newspapers of the day, each was addressed specifically to the people, not the politicians.
Today I would like to reexamine one of these articles, as I feel that it is not only relevant, but telling in today’s political climate. With President Obama and his administration engaged in an overt effort to seize financial institutions and with bailout-mania going on, I think you will begin to see how far afield this government of ours has gone.
Oh, and one last caveat before we begin: I am fully aware that I have the great benefit of hindsight in responding to this article, better than two hundred years worth, to be precise. I, therefore do not see this as any great feat of political thought or reasoning… just a solid review of what has been, and what currently is, for the purposes of re-orienting the politically lost amongst us.
Let us begin with the words of the document itself:
“It is therefore improbable that there should exist a disposition in the federal councils to usurp the powers with which they are connected; because the attempt to exercise those powers would be as troublesome as it would be nugatory; and the possession of them, for that reason, would contribute nothing to the dignity, to the importance, or to the splendor of the national government. But let it be admitted, for argument’s sake, that mere wantonness and lust of domination would be sufficient to beget that disposition; still it may be safely affirmed, that the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.”
– Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #17
Well, does that sound like the federal government that you know and love? Not hardly. To begin, I cannot think of very many aspects of the federal government that are dignified or splendorous… important perhaps, but not splendorous. What makes this passage appear so naive (from our now experienced perch) is the notion that the government exists to serve the will and well-being of the nation alone and not its own wants or needs. Hamilton speaks of the Representatives of each state coming together to squash any potential usurpation of powers that would present a danger to the individual states themselves. So, who represents the State in which you live in our national government? Your representatives? Your Senators? No. Neither of those represent the interests of the State of your residence. In fact, nobody does. The only representation in our government is that of the individual citizens of the United States. Zimbabwe has official representation in DC, but Georgia does not. How is that?
Well, lets look back at the Constitution (since the purpose of these articles was to support its adoption). Article I, Section 3 states (in part):
…”and if Vacancies happen by Resignation, or otherwise, during the Recess of the Legislature of any State, the Executive thereof may make temporary Appointments until the next meeting of the Legislature, which shall then fill such Vacancies“
Did you get that? The legislature of each individual State is to fill the offices of the Senate, according to the original text of the Constitution. Which, I think we can all agree would give each state a solid voice in government. So why is that not the case now? Look to the 17th Amendment. It was the genesis of our current situation, the popular election of Senators. Presented for ratification in the summer of 1912, the 17th amendment was a response to a growing movement amongst the populace and the individual states for the direct election of senators. By the time the amendment was sent to the states, there were already a number of states that had changed their own state electoral process to encompass direct election. The biggest issue were the deadlocks that would occur in individual state legislatures, preventing any representation from that state from being seated at all. While that is a problem, I don’t think that the people of the state would stand for a lack of representation for very long in this day and age. Heads would roll and seats would be reassigned. Repealing the 17th Amendment would immediately reinstate a power and importance to the Legislatures of the States that has been sorely needed for nearly a century. It would also assure that the individual States would have direct access to the governmental process.
The second part of this argument goes directly to the education of the populace and the universally recognized (yet legally nonexistent) “right to vote”. It is my opinion, and I am sure that it is shared to some extent by most of the country, that there are certain people who have no business casting a ballot for any type of election. The difference comes in how that group of people is defined. Should those dependent on the government for sustenance be allowed to vote? How about criminals? Maybe just people who own their own home? When the Constitution was ratified, the opinion that all could vote was not the norm. In fact it would have been seen as lunacy. Do I agree with their reasons for denying the vote to certain classes of citizens based on race and gender? Heck no. Race and gender are not valid reasons to prevent someone from voting. Do I see the wisdom in restricting the privilege of voting to those who are educated enough and self sustaining? Absolutely. That very thought goes directly to the point of the quoted text:
…”the sense of the constituent body of the national representatives, or, in other words, the people of the several States, would control the indulgence of so extravagant an appetite.”
Can the uninformed and uneducated be considered to have sense as to how best run the nation? Certainly not. What is to keep them from voting based on what they want for themselves materially? Shouldn’t a basic understanding of economics and civics be a requisite for the privilege of casting a ballot?
Coming back to the situation in which we find ourselves currently, I would put forth that it is entirely fair and accurate to argue that we can see the result of not having any check on the federal government, and that it is not a good result. Our President is engaging in policy decisions that are self-evidently anathema to solving our current market slump and naive at best. Raising taxes on producers and investors in a down economy? Are you kidding me? Seizing privately held companies and interfering with the free market with such a brash and arrogant demeanor? Who is going to invest money with a financial firm when the “geniuses in the Big White buildings” may come along and, by fiat, take what you have invested outright? Yeah, that’s the way to go.
Getting back to the point… Even Alexander Hamilton, who was a strident proponent of a strong central government, saw that the States must be empowered to check the power of the national government in order to prevent this kind of usurpation of power. This nation has always been greatest when it is free to grow and prosper unfettered by government. Let them do as they are Constitutionally instructed: maintain peace, national unity and the rule of law, but short of that, stay the hell out of our business. We don’t need 73 levels of government approval for anything, and we don’t need a ‘nanny state’ to wipe our rear end and hand out band-aids for our boo-boos…just a swift and draconian reaction to those who disregard the lives and liberties of others. If the people who designed this government to be strong still wanted its reach and effect to be so obviously limited, how the hell did we end up with this monster that lives in a 10 mile square on the Potomac River?