Waning Gibbous Moon Tonight
Founding Father Roger Sherman
Sad will be the day when the American people forget their traditions and their history, and so longer remember that the country they love, the institutions they cherish, and the freedom they hope to preserve, were born from the throes of armed resistance to tyranny, and nursed in the rugged arms of fearless men.
Sovereignty Of The Mind is Not Found in AI nor Hegelian / Marxist Sophistry
Our society was founded upon the principle of the individual being able to actualize their potential, and that was achieved by providing a framework of rights were respected and held sacred above the needs to factions and the majority. A republic, which was representation of many by a few to form a majority, was not the final form that the Constitution granted. The Founding Fathers understood and acted to preserve the rights of the individual as fundamental to the functioning of this new form of government. It was beyond republicanism, it was an entirely new form of government and society.
The individual, as Jefferson and others understood, was not just allowed to perform whatever acts that they willed. This new society would require that institutions would provide the means for individuals to understand and communicate their rights. And they MUST act in accordance with their responsibility to ensure rights of all citizens were maintained.
Today we have forces that wish to erase this rich heritage from our culture. The forces come in the form of technology, there is a great promise of entirely different life online with countless people who support your viewpoints. There is the promise of information and access to wisdom at your finger tips.
This is collectivized thinking, it is The Wisdom Of The Crowds on Steroids. It is collectivism for you and me while a caste of technocrats perch above us, watch, and guide us. Like the Watchmakers describe in Show Notes: Who Watches The Watchmakers, these guardians steer us. They don’t guide us, the drive for us, the deliver us to entities and interests whose goal is to use us, perhaps to change society permanently.
Inner Turmoil of Washington’s Cabinet
The source of friction came from a rivalry and disparate visions of Alexander Hamilton and Thomas Jefferson. Hamilton favored strong central government which would use debt and a vehicle for investment in industry while Jefferson favored an agrarian economy. Washington wrote to Jefferson:
How unfortunate, and how much is it to be regretted.., that whilst we are encompassed on all sides with avowed enemies and insidious friends, that internal dissentions should be harrowing and tearing our vitals. The last, to me, is the most serious-the most alarming-and the most afflicting of the two. And without more charity for the opinions and acts of one another in Governmental matters. … I believe it will be difficult, if not impracticable, to manage the Reins of Government or to keep the parts of it together: for if, instead of laying our shoulders to the machine after measures are decided on, one pulls this way and another that, before the utility of the thing is fairly tried, it must inevitably be tom asunder- And, in my opinion the fairest prospect of happiness and prosperity that ever was presented to man, will be lost-perhaps for ever!
Washington’s Warnings Regarding Factions
https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/resources/pdf/Washingtons_Farewell_Address.pdf
◦ Poisoning the community with lies.
◦ Distracting public councils and enfeebling public administration.
◦ Agitating the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms.
◦ Kindling animosity between different parts of society.
◦ Fomenting occasional riots and insurrections.
◦ Opening the door to foreign influence and corruption, where the will of one country can be subjected to another through “party passions”.
Washington Enlisted Patrick Henry to Run for Office, Fearing Jefferson Presidency
Jefferson’s attempt to use the 10th Amendment to nullify the Alien and Seditions Act in 1799 indicated to Washington that Jefferson favored the power of the States to a dangerous degree. To Washington, the federal government born from the new Constitution was at risk if it’s central powers that created stability of currency, trade and treaties if the states exercised restraint in the powers that fell the federal government. Jefferson’s contentious relationships which had ended friendships with backstabbing and maligning letters had created rift, and Jefferson’s close alliance with France was a threat to the new coalition of the 13 states, running contrary to Washington’s “no foreign entanglements doctrine”.
Jefferson’s party had become popular opposition to Adams, and in some cases James Madison aligned with Jefferson’s thinking regarding states rights, having assisted Jefferson with the passage of the Kentucky and Virginia resolutions in attempt to end the unconstitutional Alien and Seditions Act. It was this activity that would sew further discontent in Washington’s eyes.
Hamilton’s Arguments in Federalist 9
Hamilton saw threats to unity:
A firm union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the states, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy, without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions, by which they were kept perpetually vibrating between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. If they exhibit occasional calms, these only serve as short-lived contrasts to the furious storms that are to succeed.
Government’s role was to take steps to prevent factions from forming in the first place, as a faction could generate violence and as Hamilton demonstrated, could end the stability of a government. This illustrates a dichotomy between liberty and security. The trouble with a majority rule is that it sewed the seeds for discontent that a dictator such as Napoleon could capitalize on.
Preserving Liberty and Preventing Authoritarian Government Was Hamilton’s Prime Argument To Preventing Factions
Hamilton was instrumental in fostering an environment of debate in order to show case the concepts that comprised the strength of the Constitution.
During the ratification debates, proponents of the Constitution, including Hamilton, argued for a limited federal government with clearly defined powers.
If it Ain’t Written Down, The Government Can’t Do It
Hamilton, after campaigning for the adoption the Constitution and a strong federal government that would be constrained, conveniently abandoned that position in favor of promoting “Implied Powers” to justify the creation of the first Federal Bank for the United State, and true bank run by the government.
Hamilton saw centralized banking, centralized finance and manufacturing at the key to power. In 1791, as the Secretary of the Treasury under Washington Hamilton urged Congress to open and central bank, and create that entity by passing a law. Jefferson and Madison opposed this.
Hamilton’s argument from the concept that in order for the federal govt to function, it has the power to carry out it’s duties. Circumstances would change, and the federal government had the ability to take the steps it needed. Otherwise that government could not function.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bank-ah.asp
The expediency of exercising a particular power, at a particular time, must, indeed depend on circumstances, but the constitutional right of exercising it must be uniform and invariable, the same to-day as to-morrow.
All the arguments, therefore, against the constitutionality of the bill derived from the accidental existence of certain State banks, institutions which happen to exist to-day, and, for aught that concerns the government of the United States, may disappear tomorrow, must not only be rejected as fallacious, but must be viewed as demonstrative that there is a radical source of error in the reasoning.
“The main proposition here laid down, in its true signification is not to be questioned.” But he continued, insisting, “It is not denied that there are implied as well as express powers, and that the former are as effectually delegated as the latter.”
- Alexander Hamilton’s doctrine of “implied powers” fundamentally altered the original intent of the Constitution, leading to an overreach of federal power.
- During the ratification debates, supporters of the Constitution, including Hamilton, assured the public that the federal government would only exercise explicitly enumerated powers. However, Hamilton later advocated for “implied powers,” which the article argues is a reversal of his previous position.
Like Elawn, Vivek and others, they quickly modify their positions or discard them entirely.
Virulent Opposition
To say that Hamilton’s proposition
- James Madison’s View: The article cites James Madison’s view from Federalist #45 that the federal government’s powers are “few and defined”. Madison also warned against “the doctrine of implication”.
- Reversal of Original Intent: The author contends that Hamilton’s doctrine of implied powers effectively overturned the original constitutional structure, leading to the expansion of federal power to “numerous and indefinite”.
- The First Bank of the United States: Hamilton’s advocacy for implied powers came about when he sought to justify the creation of the First Bank of the United States, which was opposed by people like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison who argued that the Constitution did not grant the federal government the power to charter a bank.
FDR Runs The Ball
The 1930s was a period where interpretation of implied powers aided FDR in establishing an array of federal government powers. That exceeded the Constitution.
This case initially presented a mixed result. While the court struck down a New Deal farm subsidy program as unconstitutional because it violated the Tenth Amendment, it also made a crucial assertion about the scope of Congress’s power to tax and spend. The court, in a poorly researched opinion, stated that the Constitution’s taxation clause (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1) granted Congress almost unlimited authority to spend for the “general welfare. This was based on a misinterpretation of Alexander Hamilton’s views, and was inconsistent with the views of most other founders, who did not believe that Congress had unlimited spending power.
Consequences
- Prior to these decisions, Congress generally balanced its budget or ran a surplus; since then, Congress has rarely balanced its budget, and the size of the deficits has continued to accelerate.
- These decisions enabled Congress to “bribe” states with their own citizens’ money, undermining state independence.
- They created a situation where special interests pursue federal dollars, irrespective of the public interest, which creates a situation where members of Congress can remain in office for decades.
- Since the 1960s, the federal government has used its unfettered spending authority to fund favored political causes and promote social theories