Individual Liberty — Individual Responsibility 

Now and Then

“The first and governing maxim in the interpretation of a statute is to discover the meaning of those who made it.”
— James Wilson, Of the Study of Law in the United States, 1790

“[T]he present Constitution is the standard to which we are to cling. Under its banners, bona fide must we combat our political foes.”
— Alexander Hamilton, letter to James Bayard, 1802

I’ve thought about this for a while. Many of you know that I believe our current federal government has stepped way over the boundaries imposed upon it by the Constitution, and that it’s long past time to correct that. To that end, here are more than a few quotes from our founders and from other wise men of the day, contrasted with statements made by our current crop of “leaders,” or with the state of affairs as it stands today. You be the judge.

“If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the General Welfare, the Government is no longer a limited one, possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one, subject to particular exceptions.”
— James Madison, letter to Edmund Pendleton, 21 January 1792

---

“Well, in promoting the general welfare the Constitution obviously gives broad authority to Congress to effect [a mandate that individuals must buy health insurance]. The end that we’re trying to effect is to make health care affordable, so I think clearly this is within our constitutional responsibility.”
— Democrat House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer

“The Court would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials…

“… I could not possibly conclude that the Framers made such a choice.”
— Justice Stevens dissenting in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Who was right? Rep. Hoyer, or James Madison? Can Justice Stevens truly not comprehend that the founders intended the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as limitations on government? Especially in the face of the words of the man generally acknowledged as the “Father of the Constitution”? Admittedly, Justice Stevens was also arguing against the idea that absent a law covering a topic that the Framers intended the courts to make policy by interpreting common law, and in support of that notion are these words… “One single object ... [will merit] the endless gratitude of the society: that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation.” — Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Livingston, March 25, 1825.  Of course, Thomas Jefferson had even more to say about that subject.

“[T]he opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves, in their, own sphere of action, but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Abigail Adams, 11 September 1804

My principal point here is that the framers intended the powers of the federal government to be limited in scope – as evidenced by my next selection.

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.”
— James Madison, Federalist No. 45

“On every unauthoritative exercise of power by the legislature must the people rise in rebellion or their silence be construed into a surrender of that power to them? If so, how many rebellions should we have had already?”
— Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, Query 12, 1782

---

“We have plenty of authority. … I mean, there’s no question there’s authority. Nobody questions that. Where do we have the authority to set speed limits on an interstate highway? The federal government does that on federal highways.”
— Patrick Leahy, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee

Is Senator Leahy right? Does the apparent lack of people questioning the authority of Congress to do things that don’t fall within its enumerated powers mean that they actually have that authority? For that matter, does his citing of an example of federal usurpation of the power of the states really support his argument? Was Thomas Jefferson right, or is Senator Leahy?

“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774

---

“The task of statesmanship has always been the re-definition of these rights in terms of a changing and growing social order.”
— Franklin D. Roosevelt (Commonwealth Club Address, 1932)

Was Thomas Jefferson right? Are our rights derived from the laws of nature (and nature’s God), or was Franklin D. Roosevelt right and they are defined for us by our politicians?

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. ...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
— A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788

---

“[T]he words “the people” do not enlarge the right to keep and bear arms to encompass use or ownership of weapons outside the context of service in a well-regulated militia.”
— Justice Stevens dissenting in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ET AL. v. HELLER

Who was right? That anonymous Pennsylvanian of 1788 or Justice Stevens? Is the right to keep and bear arms a right retained by individuals as “A Pennsylvanian” declared, or a right subject to the individual serving the state, as Justice Stephens would have it?

“[C]ommercial shackles are generally unjust, oppressive and impolitic. ...[I]f industry and labour are left to take their own course, they will generally be directed to those objects which are the most productive, and this in a more certain and direct manner than the wisdom of the most enlightened legislature could point out.”
— James Madison, speech to Congress, 9 April 1789

---

“This legislation will provide solutions to stabilize our domestic automobile industry so that our economy does not suffer a devastating blow and so that millions of American workers do not find themselves out of a job. It also takes tough measures to restructure and reform this industry. … Furthermore, the legislation requires these companies to make painful, fundamental changes…”
— Senator Chris Dodd, Chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs

So, was James Madison right? Or is Chris Dodd? Is a business more apt to work in its own interest if it’s allowed to, or must the government step in to force it to do business the government’s way? Is it better to allow a company to fail or must the government prop it up?

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, 6 April 1816

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy.”
— Benjamin Franklin, Emblematical Representations, 1774

---

“As president, I will eliminate estate taxes for the middle class, for small business owners, and for family farmers, but I will keep these taxes on the few hundred thousand extremely wealthy families with very large estates above $4 million in value.”
— John Edwards Presidential Campaign Speech, July 26, 2007

Is it “just” to target a few hundred thousand people for special taxation while eliminating the same taxes for “everyone else”? Isn’t this exactly what Benjamin Franklin was calling “the most erroneous and mistaken policy”? So, were Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin right? Or John Edwards?

“As a man is said to have a right to his property, he may be equally said to have a property in his rights. Where an excess of power prevails, property of no sort is duly respected. No man is safe in his opinions, his person, his faculties, or his possessions.”
— James Madison, National Gazette Essay, March 27, 1792

---

“Petitioner Susette Kelo has lived in the Fort Trumbull area since 1997. She has made extensive improvements to her house, which she prizes for its water view. …

“…we endorsed the purpose of transforming a blighted area into a “well-balanced” community through redevelopment…

“… ‘the primary motivation for [respondents] was to take advantage of Pfizer’s presence.’ …

“…we may not grant petitioners the relief that they seek.”
— Justice Stevens (giving the opinion of the court) and Justice Kennedy (concurring) in SUSETTE KELO, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. CITY OF NEW LONDON, CONNECTICUT, ET AL.

So again, who was right? James Madison, or Justices Stevens and Kennedy? Is it right for a city to take a person’s home, which has been improved and not even declared to be blighted, and give it away to a private enterprise such as Pfizer in the name of economic development? Does private property mean nothing?

“Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers.”
— John Adams, Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law, 1756

“The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men.”
— Samuel Adams, letter to James Warren November 4, 1775

---

“Yet even while they were occurring, or at least being revealed to the public, the events which spawned the impeachment seemed unserious; a telling stain on a dress, a betrayal between friends, a cigar.”
— Andrew Cohen “The Clinton Impeachment, Ten Years Later”

Consider this. Today, Democrats and liberals still say that the impeachment of President Clinton was “all about sex” and that it was nothing compared to the “lies” of President Bush (the litany of alleged “lies” has been thoroughly debunked, and yet the accusations and the outrage remain). Andrew Cohen says it all seemed “unserious” but who’s right? John and Samuel Adams or Andrew Cohen? Should we be concerned about the morality and behavior of elected officials or not? Is perjury (literally, lying under oath in a court of law) a crime and reason for impeachment or not? Remember, even though the Senate refused to convict him, William Jefferson Clinton was convicted in a court of law of perjury.

“[W]e ought to deprecate the hazard attending ardent and susceptible minds, from being too strongly, and too early prepossessed in favor of other political systems, before they are capable of appreciating their own.”
— George Washington, letter to the Commissioners of the District of Columbia, 1795

---

“To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical. It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it's been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties.”
— Barack Obama, 2001 NPR interview.

“We are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America.”
— Barack Obama, October 30, 2008.

Does President Obama really want to fundamentally change the political system given to us by the founders? Is the Constitution truly fundamentally flawed?

“[W]hy give through agents whom we know not, to persons whom we know not, and in countries from which we get no account, where we can do it at short hand, to objects under our eye, through agents we know, and to supply wants we see?”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Michael Megear, 1823

---

“Global poverty is not just a moral issue for the United States — it is a national security issue. If we tackle it, we will help improve the lives of billions of people around the world living on less than $2 per day. We will also begin to create a world in which the ideologies of radical terrorism are overwhelmed by the ideologies of education, democracy, and opportunity.”
— John Edwards

The United States has been giving foreign aid to other nations with this goal in mind for decades. We give away money as foreign aid while borrowing even larger amounts of money to keep our government afloat. Meanwhile we have millions of people in our own country who have lost their jobs in today’s fragile economy. Was Thomas Jefferson right? Or John Edwards? Extending Thomas Jefferson’s statement a bit further, why give through the federal government where we can give personally to people we ourselves see in need?

When we look at our economy, at the size of our government, and at how beholden we are as a nation to foreign creditors, conservatives almost weep with despair. Yet both political parties seem to think little of spending beyond our nation’s means and of increasing the size of government. How different are the attitudes of our Congressmen and Senators today from the sentiments of Thomas Jefferson in 1821.

“The multiplication of public offices, increase of expense beyond income, growth and entailment of a public debt, are indications soliciting the employment of the pruning knife.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Spencer Roane, 9 March 1821

Much has been said about the vile nature of politics today. The founders even warned about that.

“Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party generally. ... A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.”
— George Washington, Farewell Address, 19 September 1796

---

“This is a struggle of good and evil. And we're the good.”
— Howard Dean, February 25, 2005, referring to the difference between Republicans and Democrats

“Democrats believe in killing babies and old people, and, to judge by their various plans to modify American medical care, they believe in killing everybody else, too. Except for murderers -- murderers will get a "time out" and a chance to speak at the graduation ceremony of a prominent liberal arts college.”
— P.J. O'Rourke, The Weekly Standard, August 7, 2000

With the leader of the Democratic party calling Republicans “evil” and statements like the one from P.J. O'Rourke, is there any doubt that George Washington was right when he warned about “the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party”? Political discourse in this country has become foul and truly rank. But this isn't really anything that new. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton stoked the fires of the Spirit of Party with great fervor during Washington's own Presidency. John Adams was even defeated when he ran for a second term simply because he refused to engage with “the Spirit of Party.”

We have a republican form of government for a reason (and no, I’m not referring to the Republican Party). That reason is really rather straightforward, and our founders stated it clearly (as does my fellow blogger David, although in a different way with his corollary to Santayana’s Axiom).

“In all very numerous assemblies, of whatever character composed, passion never fails to wrest the sceptre from reason. ... Had every Athenian citizen been a Socrates, every Athenian assembly would still have been a mob.”
— Federalist No. 55, February 15, 1788

Even so, the founders also knew that the purpose of government was to protect the liberties of its citizens and to ensure that the citizens exercised their rights.

“Government, in my humble opinion, should be formed to secure and to enlarge the exercise of the natural rights of its members; and every government, which has not this in view, as its principal object, is not a government of the legitimate kind.”
— James Wilson, Lectures on Law, 1790

“Cherish, therefore, the spirit of our people, and keep alive their attention. Do not be too severe upon their errors, but reclaim them by enlightening them. If once they become inattentive to the public affairs, you and I, and Congress, and Assemblies, Judges, and Governors, shall all become wolves.”
— Thomas Jefferson, letter to Edward Carrington, 1787

For quite some time, conservatives have been saying we need to “take back our government.” I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. I hope that by contrasting the words of relatively current politicians and pundits with the words of our founders you can see why I do.

Everywhere, when Conservatives say this, someone inevitably asks for a plan. How are we going to do it? It’s all fine and good to complain about the status quo, but what can we do about it?

My plan begins quite simply with education. We’ve got to educate one another and the rest of the people about our heritage, and about what the founders believed and gave us if we’re ever to have a lasting effect.

“Law and liberty cannot rationally become the objects of our love, unless they first become the objects of our knowledge.”
— James Wilson, Of the Study of the Law in the United States, 1790

“Every child in America should be acquainted with his own country. He should read books that furnish him with ideas that will be useful to him in life and practice. As soon as he opens his lips, he should rehearse the history of his own country.”
— Noah Webster, On the Education of Youth in America, 1788

Not only should every child in America be acquainted with his country, every adult should as well, especially every adult that wields the power of the ballot.

Finally, I leave you with this as reason why the struggle is important.

“Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them.”
— Thomas Jefferson, Declaration of the Causes and Necessities of Taking up Arms, 6 July 1775

Things need to change. If as so many people have said the founders were indeed wise when they gave us what is arguably the best form of government mankind has seen, then we need to be ever vigilant, and do what we can to preserve the ideals that they handed down to us. Otherwise, our progeny will be nothing but slaves to government.