My Review of The Federalist Papers

I finally finished the appendix to The Federalist Papers. It turned out to be just the US Constitution (I had thought that there were some state constitutions included as well), which I have of course already read, but not in a long time.

Anyway, at this point, I'm almost left wondering why I bothered? In many ways, I feel that the constitution is now dead. Not only because of petty technicalities such as: we are not really sure if the President is a natural born citizen, and a member of Congress was recently knighted; more because of the 10th Amendment, which states that all powers not specifically delegated in the constitution or it's amendments, belong to the states or the people.

Which current departments of the federal government are actually discussed in the constitution? My main gripe is with the Dept. of Education (Which, many would be surprised to learn, has only existed since 1979; and few would argue that US Education has improved since its inception). However, what others seem irrelevant? The Food and Drug Administration, perhaps? Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms? Alcohol was once constitutionally in the domain of the federal gov't, but no longer. The Dept. of Energy? The Dept. of Agriculture? The Dept. of Health and Human Services? There are arguments out there that even the Federal Reserve, and the IRS are not constitutional, even with present day amendments. I haven't looked into it, but even the CIA and FBI may fall outside constitutional mandates. The constitution talks alot about state militia - but these days, that term is nearly synonymous with domestic terrorism. The military is certainly discussed and provided for, but given that militias are no longer relied upon, perhaps even the military is no longer what it was supposed to be?

So, how did all this happen? Good question, and I don't know the full answer. But, I would guess that the Civil War destroyed more than just slavery. Namely, an important voice for states rights was silenced. Now don't get me wrong, I'm very glad that slavery was abolished (At least, I'm glad that permanent, racial slavery, was abolished; but that distinction could give rise to a whole 'nother blog...). However, the more I think about it, the more I find it hard to believe that such a long, bloody war was necessary to eradicate slavery. Did any other country end slavery by fighting a war? The movie Amazing Grace shows a wonderful picture of how England did so politically. Actually, that only ended the slave-trade. I believe America also ended the slave trade politically. But, still, as far as I know, England never fought a war to finish the process. So, now we're stuck with a centralized bureaucracy to govern hundreds of millions of people, rather than a disperse bureaucracy to govern the few million that probably existed at the time.

Another reason why I think that much of the original intent of the constitution may now be irrelevant, is again related to states rights and, indirectly, slavery. I think it's hard to estimate, even now, how much influence that had on shaping our government. For instance, I was trying to figure out the difference between certain kinds of constitutional taxation, and came across this:

Apportionment
apportion v. to distribute proportionately Source: NMW

In the context of the Constitution, apportionment means that each state gets a number appropriate to its population. For example, Representatives are apportioned among the states, with the most populous getting the greater share. Direct taxes (of which there are none today) were to be charged to the states in this manner as well.

The need for apportionment of taxes, and the reason for it, is difficult for us to imagine today, but there were good reasons for it. The following is an explanation of the need for the Direct Tax Apportionment clause. It was written by Supreme Court Justice Paterson in Hylton v US (3 US 171 [1796]):

"The constitution declares, that a capitation tax is a direct tax; and both in theory and practice, a tax on land is deemed to be a direct tax... The provision was made in favor of the southern states; they possessed a large number of slaves; they had extensive tracts of territory, thinly settled, and not very productive. A majority of the states had but few slaves, and several of them a limited territory, well settled, and in a high state of cultivation. The southern states, if no provision had been introduced in the constitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other states. Congress in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion or arbitrarily, and land in every part of the Union, after the same rate or measure: so much a head, in the first instance, and so much an acre, in the second. To guard them against imposition, in these particulars, was the reason of introducing the clause in the constitution."

The distinctions between the two kinds of taxes really does me no good in trying to figure out whether the present day income tax is constitutional  or not. However, much of The Federalist Papers deals with questions of larger vs. smaller states - something which hardly seems to matter today, except perhaps at election time when the really populous states swamp the others. I do find it interesting here to read between the lines that slavery-based economies were not as prosperous, on the whole, as the free states. A modern comparison, I think, would be communism/socialism/(Heck, at this point in my life, I think I'm even ready to concede corporatism). Free men always work harder, for they are working for themselves.

To really understand the whole picture, I think I would need to read The Anti-Federalist Papers (I think I can think dialectically; I think  can, I think I can, I think I can... ).  I get the feeling that those were much more geared towards a defense of personal liberties, whereas the Federalists ultimately had the protection of commerce as their goal. Not surprisingly, 233 yrs later, we're a very commercial society (though, perhaps a failing one, at this point).

Fortunately, this paperback Penguin version gave alot of history and background, explaining that the state governments at that time were in a state of chaos, and that if the revolution were to have any permanent significance, something had to be done. One of the problems that the state governments had, is that they were issuing bad paper money, and were nullifying private debts. Sound familiar? Funny-old-world, ain't it? Well, the constitution worked relatively well for a couple centuries, I will give it that. But, I think that all human governments are doomed to fail, and as a Christian, perhaps politics shouldn't even be one of my primary concerns? More coming on that, perhaps, when I write a review for The Divine Conspiracy (which I'm still reading).

Anyway, another thing I found very interesting was the pre-occupation that the The Federalist Papers had with the dangers of standing armies. Apparently, the Anti-Federalists were very much against this, and The Federalist Papers were arguing for giving power to congress to raise armies (though they had to re-authorize every two years) - while still acknowledging the dangers of standing armies in times of peace.

More than once, a claim was made that standing armies in times of peace lead to the destruction of personal liberties, but I don't recall any direct explanation for this. Perhaps they simply meant that the soldiers were likely to use undue force in causing the citizens to take care of them (see the 3rd Amendment). However, perhaps they also meant that it would tend to cause unreasonable taxation, or that a standing army in time of peace might be inclined to start wars to justify its own existence (my Orwellian interpretation), or perhaps some other meaning was intended. I got the impression that it may have been nothing more than a vaguely statistics-like correlation=causation interpretation of history, because they were mentioning specific examples in Europe of countries that had adjacent borders, and were forced to have standing armies to protect themselves, whereas England, being an island, was largely protected, and her people enjoyed significantly greater peace and freedom than the other countries (Guns, Germs, and Steel, anyone?). The US, naturally, enjoys the protection of an entire ocean, and should be in much the same situation as England. Therefore, the federalists argued, even if congress was given the power to raise armies, the power would rarely need to be used, and furthermore, it would be limited by the need for re-authorization every two years.

I think all of this would've continued to work very well, had it not been for... the invention of the airplane! Suddenly, the entire globe is our neighbor. As the saying goes, "Good fences make good neighbors" - and our "fences" just got re-arranged. We suddenly found ourselves in the position of all those other European countries who had many adjacent neighbors, and could never let down their guard. Much as I hate to admit it, standing armies in times of peace have become a necessity. Good going, Orville and Wilbur :P However, I'm not sure that an ever present need for "standing armies" also makes needful the maintenance of military bases in 130 other countries (OK, I can't actually back-up this claim at present, so I'll just say the truth, which is that I heard Ron Paul say it; it may be a mistake, but I really do trust that guy). Furthermore, I don't see an explanation for why the last several wars have effectively been declared by the President, when that power was specifically reserved for the congress.

Speaking of sections of government overstepping their bounds, I think it's interesting that many people today complain about "legislating from the bench" (at least, the right wing chatter that I'm normally exposed to gives me this impression). The Federalist Papers many times made the point that the judicial branch was the weakest - which is one reason why judges are not given term limits. The whole realm of the judiciary is one of secrecy, IMHO. It was meant to be so, because judges were not meant to partake in all the menial political squabbles which a politician MUST in order to win voter approval. So, I think that those who assume that judges are corrupt (though they may be), and insist on term limits, don't understand the whole idea of checks & balances in the federal government (and the Fed Paper which explained the three branches, and checks and balances, was one of the original papers assigned to me in my ORU gov't class).

Many of the earlier papers seemed to enjoy emphasizing the need for larger election districts, because it would increase the need for politicians to be renowned in some way, beyond their immediate circle of friends and acquaintances. I think that, in the end, this may have backfired. Especially when coupled with the advent of mass media, a two-party system, and much larger population and land mass that was originally involved. Now I think the system simply rewards hypocritical manipulators.

When I started the book this time around (ref. earlier blog - this isn't my first time), I began thinking what corrections I would've made to the constitution so that it would work better now. Now that I've finished the book, I'm quite sure that I wouldn't know where to begin - I'm hardly as learned as the original authors of the constitution, and anyway, the world has changed alot since then, and I really wouldn't know where to begin. Though, I'm not saying it can't be done. I might even know of somene who could help do it. I had my younger brother and sister over for dinner not to long ago, and I was telling Tommy that I finally finished the book, and he asked, out of the blue, if I'd ever read the Swiss constitution? I was like whaaa? Apparently, at a swing dancing club, he met a girl (a local homeschool grad, very politically involved, who I have seen around at various Republican events) who had read the Swiss constitution, and in fact had written her own constitution. Wow! I feel... outdone. Oh, and she's like, 10 years younger than me. The worst thing about getting older is realizing how little you accomplished when you see people younger than you outdoing you.

Anyway, personally, I'm still curious what inconsistency Goedel saw in the constitution???