Constitution Thursday

When we hear the term "muck raking," we almost automatically go in our heads to politicos and specifically those who "report" on politicians and their antics. There's a good reason why we associate the phrase that way. And much of it goes back to the 1st decade of the 20th Century, when calls in earnest were coming from the media to chance how Senators would be elected. In the early 1900's, President Theodore Roosevelt began to label those in the press who attacked him or the government as "muck rakers," a term he has borrowed from a book written in 1678 and well known to Christians even today, Pilgrim's Progress. But it was over the US Senate that the muck-rakers, as they even began to call themselves, really began to strike a blow against what they perceived as government corruption and the failure of the US Senate. When William Randolph Hearst began to promote the attacks against the Senators such as Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, it became increasingly clear that facts were no longer relevant to the di

One of the things that I believe we (corporately, not you specifically) have lost connection with in our history, is that our Framers and Founders were people, not demigods (Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding). In 1865, George Washington will be featured in a painting that is hung in the dome of the US Capitol, visible through the oculus of the dome. The painting portrays Washington being elevated to the status of a deity. The idea of portraying Washington as a god, really does not offend most Americans.  On occasion, it's worth our time to talk about and recall the realities of these men and women. They lived, they loved, they got mad, they had joys. They traveled and they discussed. They argued and they liked and disliked each other. They wrote copious letters to each other in flowery language that both complemented and occasionally berated each other. They saw things differently. Some favored one way, others favored another. On March 30, 1788, six of the necessary nine States have ratified the Constitution

This week the 4th Circuit Court, ruling en banc, ruled that a Maryland State law banning "assault weapons" is Constitutional. The Court ruled that those weapons were "military" in nature and therefore they are not covered by the restrictions of the 2nd Amendment. Conservatives are outraged. Progressives are ecstatic. Who is correct? Is it as simple as "I am conservative therefore the Court is wrong" or "I am progressive so the Court is right?" Did the 4th really ignore the precedents of Heller and other cases dealing with the 2nd Amendment? In order to understand the issue, one has to consider two competing syllogism and their underlying axioms: (A) All guns are military weapons. Ownership of military guns should be restricted to the military. Therefore the individual ownership of all guns should be restricted. Or (B) All guns are military weapons. The Militia is a military unit. Individual ownership of all guns are protected by the 2nd Amendment. Remember that in order to reach a valid conclusion, the

In 1788, Fishkill, New York, was a well known and important city, having once served as the Capitol of New York State. It was also the home of the largest supply depot of the Continental Army. And Fishkill had its own newspaper, The New York Packet, later known as Louden's New York Packet. It was this newspaper, on Tuesday, February 19, 1788, that published another in a series of essays which were rapidly taking the country by storm. The essays were anonymous and while there was much speculation as to the authorship, only four or five people (not counting the writers themselves) in the entire nation could say with any certainty that they knew who the author - or authors - was. Even George Washington pretended to not know as he praised the essays and proclaimed, "Who is the author?" In fact, he had been directly told by the authors that they were in fact, the authors. The Federalist Papers, as the essays had become known, were "the best argument" in favor of ratification for the new Constitution. They were

On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban. The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can statements made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders? If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance? It's a Valentines day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!

Say the words, "Judicial Review" to most Talk Radio Show Hosts and you get to watch them go ballistic as they explain why judicial activists are ruining the country. In recent days we have seen a whole lot of this argument, as the 9th Circuit Court upheld a stay against the Immigration Executive Orders of President Obama. The Governments argument before the Court was that the Orders were not/are not "reviewable." That is to say that the Court has no power or jurisdiction to overturn the orders. Whether or not you support the Orders or oppose them, there is a basic misunderstanding as to exactly what the argument was last week - and it wasn't whether or not Immigrants from seven Islamic ruled nations should be admitted or not to the country. In fact, it was the same basic argument that the Supreme Court first heard in 1796, when Alexander Hamilton himself argued that a tax on Carriages was Constitutional. The Court agreed that it was in fact, not a direct tax and therefore Constitutional. More than that h

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed... 8th Amendment In recent days, members of the California State Senate and Assembly have made the reformation of the Bail system a "Legislative Priority" in the State. Their reasoning is that on any given day, 63% of the people held in the States Jails have not been convicted of any crime. They are simply awaiting trial and cannot - for a variety of reasons - make bail. The Legislative argument goes that the main reason that people cannot make bail is twofold. First that bail levels are set far too high in the State. Second is that the Bail system discriminates against those who are "poor," in favor of those who have money. So the solution that at least two other States have elected to employ is to eliminate Bail requirements for some "low level" crimes. The history of Bail in The United States traces its origins to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. And, with just a single word change since, has been a cornerstone of those rights which we h

July 4, 1788 - In Providence the local Federalists have set up a giant barbecue to celebrate both the Independence Day holiday and to read aloud the proposed Constitution. There is little hope that Rhode Island will quickly ratify the Constitution, in fact, as of today, there hasn't been any move to even call for a convention to consider the document. The anti-Federalists in Rhode Island aren't just opposed to the Constitution. They oppose virtually every idea to strengthen the Union. For the past few years they have intentionally/unintentionally sabotaged the Articles of Confederation by using the power of the veto to stop any forward progress. It is in Rhode Island where the rampant use of State issued paper money has resulted in chaos and financial ruin to States and individuals trying to do business with Rhode Islanders Now, as the few Federalists in Rhode Island gather to celebrate, William West, leader of the Country Party, decides to take action and make sure that the Providence Federalists understan

In the summer of 2016, the idea that an election could be "rigged" didn't really surprise anybody. At the same time, it also allowed Americans of all political stripes to act like Captain Renault and feign shock at the idea that American democracy could be so callously and easily manipulated. New Hampshire was the first of the Colonies to establish a government independent of the Crown and to establish its own state Constitution. In the Spring and Summer of 1788, New Hampshire has a unique opportunity. If she ratifies, she will become the Ninth Pillar, thus establishing the Constitution as the new government of The United States. But she also faces the same problem that South Carolina, Massachusetts, and other States have seen. That is, that the seaboard cities with their heavy mercantile class population support ratification, while the interior country folks are less enamored with the Constitution. New Hampshire's problem is that her seaboard is tiny and heavily outnumbered by the country folk. So... if y

Of all the states that - even for a fleeting moment - thought that they might be able to go their own way and reject the Constitution, Virginia is probably the only one that realistically had a chance of success. But Virginia is also the center of The Enlightenment in America; and it is her leaders who have the nations confidence. So much so, that Madison almost won't make it home in time to be elected to the Virginia Convention, because he is busy conducting the Nations business which is entrusted to Virginia. It is here that the most eloquent Anti-federalist of all, Patrick Henry, will probably join forces with George Mason, a man who attended the Philadelphia Convention but refused to sign the final document. Together, they look to face down the Federalists. If they succeed, Virginia will not ratify and it will be likely that other States remaining to consider the Constitution will follow her example. Patrick Henry will take the lead. He has a long history of being a defender of individual, particularly

As the ratification process turns to South Carolina, it is clear that the Federalists who run the State favor ratification. It was South Carolina, after all, that teamed up with James Wilson to cement the 3/5th's compromise and stuck to the deal as the tides of anti-slavery climbed against it. But it won't be as simple as that. First, the State Legislature will do something that no other legislature has done - it will openly debate the Constitution "for the sake of informing the country's members" of the reasons why the Constitution should be ratified. Then there is a second issue. South Carolina. like Massachusetts, is concerned about the lack of religious tests for holding offices. As it turns out, South Carolina has an official religion, one that is traditional but quickly becoming an anachronism. Lastly, Mr. Rawlins Lowndes rises in opposition to ratification. A Charleston lawyer, he takes upon himself the mantel of speaking for those "less accustomed to public speaking," and he outlines the problems t

Over the course of the Convention, Luther Martin (Maryland) had been a petulant opponent of the plan and an irritant to pretty much everybody there - even those who agreed with him. Now that his State, Maryland, is taking up ratification, he will continue to adamantly and vociferously oppose the Constitution. He is the very embodiment of the Anti-Federalists. Pretty much nobody will listen to his ranting, and Maryland will easily vote to ratify. It's what happens after that is so fascinating to me. Because of our own historical myopia, we tend to only see the good and heroic sides of the Framers and Founders. We don't relate to them as people just like us, facing difficulties and crises. Consequently we don't learn from their example of how to deal with and even overcome those difficulties. The rest of Luther Martins' life will be spent in various pursuits as a lawyer - including defending Aaron Burr against charges of treason - and in the bottle. But by 1807, he will be called, "The Federalist Bulldog," b

As momentum builds for ratification, the two biggest States, New York and Virginia are hesitating. New York is seemingly against ratification, but as the pillars of the needed nine States continue to fall, the debate intensifies. With their convention not scheduled to begin for several weeks, the debate moves into the Social Media of the day - the newspapers. First, New York papers take up the Anti-Federalist cause by publishing the DeWitt Letters, the Letters from a Federal Farmer, the Cato and Brutus letters, but they also begin to pick up a series of equally anonymous letters written specifically to the people of New York and signed simply, Publius. These particular letters will become known as "The Federalist Papers," and they are not - despite common misconception - a "commentary on Federalist Papers Facebookthe Constitution." They are in fact, a reasoned and direct defense of the Constitution as written and a statement of what the Federalists believed would be the benefits of ratification of the Cons

After "impartial discussion & full consideration," the Massachusetts delegates to their State ratifying Convention agreed to what became known as the "Massachusetts Compromise." This allowed a number of anti-Federalists, including Samuel Adams, to vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. But it wasn't a cut and dried, full-throated endorsement of the document. As the compromise agreed, many of the Anti-Federalist ideas worked their way into the ratification document as proposed amendments to the Constitution. Many of their recommended amendments are easily recognized by us today, and some made their way into the proposed Bill of Rights when the 1st Congress finally convened. Some of the ideas were ultimately rejected, but there is one overriding idea that we must keep in mind when considering these ideas: all of them came from people who did not like the Constitution as proposed. As intriguing as what the Massachusetts Convention recommended is what the did not include in their list of proposed amendmen

When the Massachusetts Convention gathered in early January, 1788 to consider ratification off the Constitution, the state faced three hurdles to ratification. First, the lingering suspicion and distrust of a central government from the western part of the State when just two years before, Shay's Rebellion had shaken the nation. The western part of the State saw the Constitution as little more than a larger form of the same government that had suppressed their rights and demanded their hard currency, and strongly objected to the idea that Congress would be able to tax and that only gold and silver could be used to pay debts. The Second problem was Maine. At the time, Maine was part of Massachusetts, and because of it's physical separation had often felt both neglected and treated as second class by the Boston mercantile class. Furthermore, Maine had staunch loyalist leanings during both the Revolutionary war, and would again during the War of 1812. It was assumed by most people that Maine wanted to separate

In early 1788, a Weston, Massachusetts newspaper reported that, "Little else, among us, is thought or or talked of, but the new Constitution." The debate seemed to engross the attention of all classes of people, including women, who normally would be excluded from politics. . But as Massachusetts debates, the fate of the Constitution is as yet, undetermined. If Massachusetts ratifies, it is likely that the Constitution will be adopted. But if not, it seems that New York, Virginia will most likely follow their example. The debate's have consumed Americans of all political and social divisions. for the first and perhaps only time in her history, the level of political engagement is nearly one hundred percent. Even former Loyalists have and interest in the Constitution being ratified, as it would mean they would finally receive their long ago promised compensation. But no longer will States simply approve the Constitution in quick and easy conventions. In Massachusetts, where the Revolution really began, the

Connecticut's path to ratification was decidedly more smooth than some of the other States. While there would be debate, and the final vote would not be unanimous, the entire process reflected the character of Connecticut in a way perhaps no other process had. Certainly not the Revolution, which at one point during the Convention, had seen a delegate accuse Connecticut of being less than whole hearted in her efforts to support the Patriot cause. Overshadowing Connecticut's debate, the Federalist Papers turn away from the subject of the problems with the Confederacy and the ills that face the nation and the need for union, to the more detailed arguments as to why certain provisions in the proposed Constitution are so important and, consequentially, beneficial to the nation. The Anti-Federalists naturally turn to those same provisions as dangers to the liberties of the people. So who is right? Can both sides be? How can something, like a standing army, be both a danger and a necessity?

By the summer of 1787, George, the youngest and smallest (population size) State, seemingly had very little to offer to the nation, and needed a great deal of help to deal with her problems, many of which could be described as more or less self-produced. The biggest problem was Georgia's indifference towards... well... pretty much everything, including defending herself, first against the British and now against the hostile tribes on her borders and territory. And while her participation in Congress had been spotty at best, she had managed to send four delegates to the Convention. Now, in very late 1787 - December 25th, to be exact, Georgia's leaders gathered to debate ratification of the Constitution. For her, it was more a matter of what was to be gained, than what could be lost. And when the New Year finally rolled in, Georgia kicked it off by officially ratifying the Constitution.

In late 1788, Pennsylvania was, without a doubt, the most culturally, religiously and politically diverse State in the Union. It was also the one State that managed to spend most of the preceding decade disenfranchising most of its own citizens as a small powerful, anti-British, anti-Quaker minority ruled the State politically and used that power to maintain its base. It was only in 1786 that laws had been repealed that allowed the ouster of the political minority from power. Now, just two years later, the State delegates meet in the same room where the Constitution had been forged to debate whether or not Pennsylvania would follow Delaware's lead and ratify the document. Unlike Delaware, in this room sat men who adamantly opposed the Constitution, and interestingly enough, had recently been removed from power in the State. Over the few weeks of debate, the fight in Pennsylvania moved out of the State Hall, and into the media of the day - newspapers and pamphlets. And whoever won that, would win the ratific

The first State conventions in Pennsylvania and Delaware are called to debate the proposed Constitution. While Pennsylvania will actually debate, and question the wisdom of proceeding sans Bill of Rights, Delaware's internal issues and her external debates with the other States, have put her in a unique position. Of the thirty delegates who will be elected to her Convention, all thirty will favor ratification, even those men from Sussex County, which polls show is adamantly against ratification. For years, Delaware had led the fight for equal representation. Both in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and in the new Senate. And it is at Delaware's insistence and with her support that the proposed Constitution offers that equal representation in the new Senate. Internally, Delaware is racked by violence and constant bickering between the the Whigs and the Tories, but unlike her neighbor, Pennsylvania, both of Delaware's political movements want the Constitution ratified. It's more an argument o