text:
As we try to understand America, I make the case that Britain lost the war to us, more than we won it. Britain has a history of colonizing, and then being kicked out. If you look at Norman Rockwell's famous mural-like painting, running behind the bar, at the Yankee Doodle Tap Room at the Nassau Inn in Princeton NJ, the redcoats, are old, white-haired, fat, and comical.
Ironically, the American Leaders of the war, wanted a stronger federal government, even while impositions of a far off government was what they fought. The tradition is that the liberator of a region, often moves on to lead that region. This legitimizes battle, and maintains the warlike as imposing.
The continental congress which preceded our republic, gave too much power to each state, leading to discord; and did not have the power to tax individuals, rather the states had to pony up to pay for what constituted federalism, such as common defense. Madison is of the opinion, if the states have an autonomy verging on a state/nationhood for each, the entire region of America would become vulnerable, and lose the peace the war established.
The transition from medieval ways, to governments that define the world today; was the historical point of the revolution and America. Previous to medieval times, classical cultures had senates and executive and judicial branches. The historical return to classical ways, diluted or pointed as they are, signifies an accepted desire out of the cultural absences of medieval times. Times or histories were better in classical eras, and history sought a return to them through America.
Things were not exactly the same though. Tribes existed. Every citizen in Rome was a member of one of 30 tribes, and each tribe had one vote, towards the ratification of war, or regarding some legislative proposals. The judiciary was composed of poor people, to avoid class collusion. The judiciary had veto powers upon legislation of Senate. Criminal matters of the people, I believe, were handled within the tribes by the tribes themselves. A federal or republican judiciary wasn't seen as necessary of desirable to prosecute the people, but to make sure the laws of politics were followed by the senate and executive branches. The executive branch was sometimes a committee, and in the roman republic at least, only served a year, whereas Senators could easily have 20 year terms and were chosen among themselves by the patricians, not the plebes, who constituted the people. Slates of primary candidates were selected by the people though, and if the people asked you to run, it was compelling. And remember the judiciary was composed of Plebes.
And yet we must remember, voting, representative democracy, while allowing more political players and play, than the system of kings and nobles and feudalism, is grounded in voting, and voting contradicts, and lies about, the kingdom of god. So government is designed to increase folly, rather than reduce it. The participatory elements of democracies of antiquities, allowing the people their say in piazzas with ayes and nays, while protected by our first amendment and tenth amendment laws and constitution; has been wholly forgotten in our days and age. The illogical crime of local officials is ignorant of the natural and constitutional law protecting local decisions being made in peaceful assemblies through ayes and nays of all present. The tenth amendment's reservation of powers not given to the federal government for the state or the people, backhandedly excludes local officials. So the peaceful assemblies of the powers of the people that had a say in local decisions in places throughout antiquity, throughout the modern world, has been forgotten. Though there are towns in New England requiring quorums of 236 for local decisions to be made.
There is also evidence of selective education; particularly since in New Jersey, local decisions were made in peaceful assemblies; into the 1900's and yet now we have local officials, and the history and knowledge of local decision making in peaceful assemblies is unknown and untaught. This totalitarianism, totalitarians creates ignorance, doesn't mean this is interests of anyone; but a metaphysical interest. Evil gods oppressing society were understand in classical times; the oppression of earth in their interest; yet today we blame the rich; even though ending the oppressive nature of society benefits everyone; and it makes no more sense for liberals to not understand how we can work together, than for conservatives to desire local officials.
The change to federalism encompassed congressional representatives not voting how their state legislative ordered them, but what then each representative, who now was paid through the federal government, thought.
Then there was the notion of a uniformity of regulations regarding trade and tax between the states, or with other countries. While this might be logical, it may not be free market, and hinder the nuances of individual, production. Thus there is a surge against conflict, a righteousness, that is here characteristic with a limitation upon local freedom and decision. Peace, whose cost, is limitation, and lack of trust: out of fear the states would engage in conflict as Europe in medieval, unprosperous times.
The federal government is designed to avert the negative, not promote the positive. It's not to be a form of leadership regarding common problems, such as health care, but a source of strength regarding potential catastrophes, such as war. However, state governments, are not seen as enemating leadership, perhaps limited by the media's view of state government, perhaps because of the exaltation and ego of the federal government, and because there is no tradition of great leadership coming from state governments. All I can say, is that the impression of the national idea, the giving up of state armies, the giving up the right for seperate trade pacts; can that have damaged and derailed state legislatures so much? Does our consciousness so rest on congress that we forget what our state legislature potential is?
To Madison, a strong federal government with an absolute check upon the individual states, a "Kingly prerogative" was "absolutely necessary" (letter to Washington). "Otherwise States will continue to violate treaties….(and) harass each other with rival and spiteful measures dictated by mistaken views of interest." Even if this was true back then, when was the last time it was true? The states would never be able to develop politically, precisely because with the federal government assuming an essential leadership, states would have difficult conceiving their own political evolution.
According to Madison the point of the federal government is exactly what medieval Europe needed and lacked; a giant umpire to rule disputes without warfare. From here, the extrapolation to a world umpire would make sense. A king, who fulfills this role, is more prone to subjectivity, than a federal government of a republic. And yet the federal government mandated paper money, at the expense of bills of credit, to the interests of mercantile society; which according to Madison, the several states would never have assented to. Madison may forget kings and ancient republics often did not demand money, but a portion of local grain; for urban areas; towards an agrarian economy.
His insistence the judiciary have a national temperament and not be beholden to the states; subjugates the judiciary to the fine flow of federal government; nor considers it as consistent with the interests of the people, as justice uniquely and classically, is.
The "Virginia Plan" specifically spells out five items necessarily intrinsic to the constitution. Protection against foreign invasion. Eliminating war and tension between the states. Secure a peacetime prosperity. Prevent internal insurrection. "Be paramount to state constitutions".
The Virginians objection to the confederacy included the havoc of different paper monies, inability to raise funds and soldiers, foreign debts, insurrection in Massachusetts: Citing an inability to legally unite in war, a lack of primacy hindering peace between the states, and failure towards the stated goals of the confederacy, "common defense, security of liberty and general welfare."
In classical times, to be a senator, one needed to be higher class. The president or chief executives served only one year, but Senators may serve many years, and they would replace themselves of their own senatorial class accord, not elections.
The Virginia Plan advocated individuals electing their representatives. Others claimed the people would be ill informed, nor to be so much about government. Mr. Gerry, "The people do not want virtue but are the dupes of pretended patriots." Thus state legislatures should decide their national representatives.
Mr Mason, of Virginia, argued that general elections would enable the lower classes to represent localities, and this would create a greater and more dynamic lower house. Mr Wilson took it even further, arguing for a mandate guaranteeing the lower classes places in the lower house. This would increase confidence in the nation. Confidence is essential. State legislatures should not have more power. A caste uncaring about the lower classes would be created. The state legislators would be snobs. Who is opposed to the federal government? The people? Or State governments? The issue is whether to have electors separating the people from their representatives. Another issue is deciding who runs. Part of the problem today is no one good and popular is running. Means for the people to decide who is running, and not necessarily means for deciding who wins, is another consideration, modern times doesn't consider. As popular elections for congress are exposed as etching the national idea on American Conscience, and today's congressmen rarely lower class; Mr. Mason's initial remark may be viewed as cloying, unctuos and not true.
Another issue, that does faintly ring our federal government, is how much like a monarchy our executive is. As I said, in The Roman Republic, the executive served for one year, was chosen by the Senate, and frequently several were chosen, in the faith that several 2-10 would be necessary to the executive, rather than one. However this idea was never really considered in the framing and transition of our government, making me think our founders, while guided by classical tradition, may not have been as aware of classical traditions, and on sort of autopilot. "A single man would feel the greatest responsibility," Mr. Rutledge. Again, this notion was not adhered to at all in the Roman Republic, whose expansion, I remind you, mirrored our own attacking of indigenous tribes. However Rome merely wanted subservience, not the land, nor extermination, and at a substantive level, cultivated friendship with the tribes they conquered, if only because they needed their friendship to conquer more tribes farther off.
Should the president have the power to declare war and peace? Should the executive merely do what the senate wants? The republic of Rome turned to its executive for leadership, yet because the senate appointed new executives, known as consuls, each year, they could constantly get in the people the senate believed was required. The omission of consideration of a joint executive of several, significant so far, in historical perspective. Democracy or Republicanism, in the Roman Republic seemed grounded in compromise, in forms that compromise, and check and balance, between, Senate and Executive, Senate and People, (the people having to approve items in peaceful assembly) Religion and State.
Ben Franklin did not mention the logicality of an executive that can include several. He did argue uniquely that federal officials should not be paid. That may ignore the predominant wealth of our class of government officials is not from salary, but interests that may converge with their responsibility. Now if you limited government to poor people with few assets, you may have something. But Franklin distinguished between love of power and love of money and they should be kept separate. This framework is there in his speech herein. You do not want selfish people ruling. Then maybe, as a prosperous tradesman, he thought he'd a better chance becoming a senator if less people ran due to no pay.
There is an overall worry that government will be dominated by passionate men, going in the wrong direction. In Freudian terms, this is a worry that the states will want their own direction. The federal government has not been fulfilled with stupid passionate men. Rather, men too stiff, orderly, and in order, for change. The conservative tradition of America, isn't passionate, but dry. Passion comes from those who want change, and those people, by nature, are not in government, but out of government, suffering government. Franklin sees a "constant warfare between governing and the governed." But the debate here has never been that pronounced or passionate in America. The rigidity imposed upon our government, and the lack of access to power by the people, has not resulted in the fears of civil war and such, our founders worried about, and created a government regarding. Nor has any state in American History ever inspired other states to buck the national government.
Franklin does cite as an educated worry, which occurred often enough in classical history, where the people prefer a monarch they like, rather than 500 senator aristocrat likes they don't; probably out of the rigidity of the system. Franklin says this fear is alleviated, if we don't pay the senators, and the people respect that. Far more sound is the replacement of gold and silver with lead by Lycurgus, who took Sparta from a feuding place, to an 800 year government, which is quite old by historical standings: Far more sound is the direct trade of a society that values production and time: Far more sound is the traditional philosophical and spiritual castigation of money as the root of evil.
Franklin's idea failed to gain momentum. However it is worthy to say that in the Republic of Rome, the chief executives led the troops in war and went to the front; and in that sense downplayed money. Moreover the yearly warfare of Rome, was a greater concern than money. Yet, int truth, The Republic funded itself with plunder, of metal, foodstuffs and art; that is true. The values of lead being money rather than gold and silver, led to, created a brotherhood in Sparta, Rome did not avail. Most importantly, the classical justification of republican government as allowing local decisions made by the people with ayes and nays has not yet been seen in this rendition of constitutional debate.
Then, on June 4, there is a debate as to the executive being one man, or several, or many. Mason argued as foil for an executive of one, "The Secrecy, The Dispatch, The Vigour, and Energy which government will derive from it." But this may be foil. For Rome was excellent at war with an executive opened to several. True, in perilous times, they would appoint a short-term dictator, when one with martial law was needed to lead the country out of an emergency situation. And when the crisis was over, the dictatorship ended, and the dictator was meant to end the crisis. In other words, there was clearly something undesirable about a one man executive form, to the Senators of the Roman Republic, perhaps feeling the flux of power in only one man to be more challenging than the yearly rotation of power each year, as consulship was only for a year, so many got to be consuls. Furthermore, the metaphysical battle between good and evil can control one more than several. And we can see how this happened, if we consider our constant warfare with Indians, parallel to Roman constant expansion. Particularly if we recognize a secret undeclared quality to this warlike expansion, then we see that a unitary executive failed to respect and protect the Indians into responsible neighbors we could work with. I am saying if America's executive office was of committee, there would have been a more overt, conscious and compassionate policy to the indians; One president did not have the charactor to deal with this huge, immoral destiny.
A more common concern is the verging of the single executive into a monarchal arrogance, several of the most recent presidents have definitely demonstrated. Mr. Mason, using the above as foil, argues this would not be possible with a plenary executive. Mason implies a plenary executive is more consistent with law, than an executive of one; more traditional in classical times, as more capable of rallying the people into what is necessary. Were there three in the executive he says, one each from the south, north and middle sections of the United States; more loyalty from the disparate regions would ensue.
An executive of three would reduce tensions between candidates for executive office, as more would be accommodated. It would be a check upon one evil president gaining power, something America has been consistently accused of. And a more extensive wisdom and knowledge of the interests of the union be brought.
The notion of a several executive makes sense. The Roman Republic was not compelled to do so each year; it was an option. But for this practice to be passed over under the guise of wisdom is suspicious.
On june 6th, direct election of representatives were discussed. Again, the case was made that state legislators would choose people of greater merit, to serve the people, though the people may nominate people for the state legislature to choose from. However this was successfully counteracted by Mr. Wilson, that the sense and mind of the people is essential and that direct voting provides a necessary and accurate "transcript" of the people.
What is difficult to get is that while direct voting seems more egalatarian than the state legislature choosing representatives; the individual consciousness, so influenced by the idea of congress, forgets the state interests, which while folded up and magnetized to the state legislature, are unable to be truly unfolded, in face of all the other states, that have failed to be innovative or evolving, this conception is in the orbit of congress, when it should be in the orbit of the state legislature; and while it is there, it can not be picked up unless cited by media, and the media, nationally grounded, is a failure at pointing out what benefits and unites the people.
Direct voting in federal elections fundamentally renders the voter closer to the national government than state government, because of the enormous things federal governments consider, detach from the smaller cultural nuances states require; and this is desirable to national governments. Yet it is cited that representative democracy is necessary when the region is too large to accommodate direct democracy. Therefore we must ask whether the federal government is too strong, because its region, too large. Dividing up into 3 or 4 countries, like Britain, Ireland, Scotland and Wales, then makes sense from the logic of this debate. This division certainly is the option. The federalist papers is in opposition to the idea of becoming three or four regions.
Yet again, the point of the union is repeatedly cited as few. A national defense, against internal conflict between states, treaties with foreign nations must be uniform, and the regulation of commerce, it was argued was better uniform than disparate. These are the only goals of the federal government our founders designed. Everything else is reserved for the state, or the people in peaceful assembly. These goals have been achieved. Though the failure for anything but niggardly with the Indians is consistent with decisions this body made. Even if our federal government has been proved to be too hollowing to the states, through the weight of congress upon the consciousness of state citizenry's smaller concerns, we may see that now, comment thereon, and let reason dictate her course.
The interplay between a congress that represents the states, as opposed to the people, requires care. A bond between the federal and the people is important; but if that bond is at the expense of a state government closer to the people, the argument may be specious. To be tricked into a government with these goals, without a belief that this lesser of two evils, might not actually be the lesser; if the states can get along, and the people able to responsibly develop their polity. The defacto pattern to one country and not several or many, is the conservative, less risky, more homogenized-sacrificial, decision made by history.
It was also understood a smaller state would be more prone to partisan abuse and less ideal than a larger one; yet classical times were full of smaller, developed and kinder states. Indeed, the Indians may have been greater for the small size of their society. The idea was for a strong federal government to guide more prone smaller state governments well. But what we must bear in mind, is the danger of being fooled by spurious arguments. For instance, does a government over a large area, as Madison generally argues, provide so many interests that a tyranny of a majority not take place. Or is that actually quite stultifying and limiting? By ruling so much, or what it does rule, the federal government limits diversity of influence and interest. Rather than emcompassing more potential, more potential is strictly limited. This is the real debate. Moreover, the sense of permanence to this debate? Isn't there to be some mechanism allowing for the further development of these ideas as times change and pass?
The consensus seemed the lower house be directly elected, and the upper house be elected by the state legislatures. In Rome, the lower house, existed in the square outside the senate building, making representatives uniquely accessible to the people, and more truly rendering it a house of the people. In the Roman Republic, the lower house, or assembly, came about much later in history. Likewise, Senators served a considerable and longer time, and you had to be related to the original 100 Senators who united to over throw and change the monarchy into a rule of senators.
Regarding the issues for the upper house or senate; What is the number of Senators required, many or few? And if they were chosen by state legislatures, would they have greater merit? If you believe there is something wrong with 100 people currently deciding for a nation, because it is simply too easy to control a 100 men….I mean there is a basic problem period, in the ignorance of our government, not effecting a better country, in a genuine way.
The debate herein is more convoluted and wordy; out of the karma of the stuffiness of the senatorial tradition. Likewise we really see federalism engineered by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, which readily admit's the constitution as the lesser of two evils, not a perfect document; And James Madison as guiding the debate, in that as he speaks, it is on more general terms, and with observations designed to guide the debate the way it must go. Mind you, the kingdom of god has yet to be acknowledged in government, yet Mr. Madison says, "The use of the senate is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness ( and we really see what the word "cool" means), with more system, with more wisdom, than the popular branch." Enlarge their number, decrease their import with vices they are meant to check.
He then says something duplicitous, The Roman Tribunes, the judiciary afore mentioned of the Roman Republic, "They lost their influence and power in proportion as their number was augmented….. They were appointed to take care of the popular interests…because the people by reason of their number could not act in concert, were liable to fall into factions….and become prey to their aristocratic adversaries"
For one, according to Livy, which is my primary source of history of the Roman Republic, who in turn is based on the yearly annals of Rome, Rome recorded of itself, the office of Tribunes were created by the army, which went on strike, until they created an office aimed as a check upon the folly of the legislators and executive who led them into war foolishly. The tribunes were created by the army as a check upon foolish wars through veto powers, and a check upon folly of generals within war.
This is something specifically within the public debate of America now; Madison really colors the truth and idealism of the tribune. Secondly, politically, the people always clamored for more Tribunes. Originally there were just a few, but the people always wanted more, at least ten, then twenty, but the Senate held back, offering them less, consistently. And thirdly, the tribunes became major corrupted by power itself. Even though the tribunes came from a great ideal America specifically lacked, they were largely ineffective in stopping war, or changing Rome. They were like the democrats today. The democrats are supposed to be the party of the people; but they don't relate to the people and their real issues, because power corrupts, because with power comes pressure, and it is not a good pressure. Suffice to say Madison argued the power of the senate would be increased by its fewness.
Madison is caught in an outright lie here. While power corrupted the Tribunes from their original ideals, they and the people were always clamoring for more offices of tribunes, the rational being the more people with the power to advocate for the people against the patricians, and senators the better. We can infer that Madison's deliberation towards lowering the number of senators, posits a power to the senate that is insular and not bound or about persuading the people, but a power unto itself; whereas the tribunes he compares the proposed senate to, had to make their case to the senate, and the respond to desires of the people: thus the more officials in that capacity the more needs met, and persuasion, possible. I found Hamilton and Madison, in The Federalist Papers, to often be duplicitious. The argument our government is perfect, ignores that it is the lesser of two evils: that it was done to avoid war between the states, (and take from the Indians): whereas a greater design, that took on more risk, would have granted more power to the states, and the indians (who really should have had a say in this debate). Likewise propoganda ascribes our founders to orignating the system of checks and balances, a senate, and executive; when this was common in antiquity.
Likewise let me try to explain an ignorance of the debate going on so far: The judiciary in the roman republic, as I said, was not concerned with criminal activity of the people, but of officials, and suspect legislation, because the tribes handled criminal matters among themselves. I read the russians were jealous of the jews, which caused pogroms, because Russia let the Jews, being one of the last tribes, to handle their own misbehavior themselves with a tribal judiciary. I extrapolate this is what happened in the Republic. How our founders could postulate a judiciary focused on prosecuting the people, by federal government, rather than the people themselves, through tribal organization, a glaring ignorance, and folly in its own right. This has led to society free of crime at all, nor focused a judiciary on the interests and rights of the people, aimed at decisions of government and power, largely.
For the federal government to work, with unified policies, effectively, it has to have the power to strike down state laws. This was debated and worked on next, at the constitutional convention. At the convention though, here, this power was voted down 7 states to 3. Because here the delegates represented their states; whereas congress today is paid by, and has the interests of the federal government, rather than the depleted notion of the state they come from. Thus a major push in arguments was that conventioneers do what is necessary, not what their state wants.
Even us, as individuals, consider ourselves more citizens of America, than our state. Back in 1787, it was, I think, largely the oposite. And we should wonder whether our current weighting is right or wrong. Our state is closer to us, so we should be more citizens of it, than our country; and yet the state has been so stultified since the constitutional convention, that the motivation for changing this weight, unconsidered.
Federal policy does require all the states being behind it. Yet today's debates do not organize opposition to national policy by state, but by political view; and this is probably wrong, and designed to inhibit the developement of state political and cultural identity; though such does grow lately, and a few states famous for it.
Often in the debate, cited is the violation of national treaties by states, yet rarely, specificially, what treaties have been violated, I do not know. Also this movement of a negative upon the states seemed aimed against states developing their own currency; a nuance to me that doesn't immediately strike me as bad, as it encourages sustainability, rather than trade.
Mr. Dickinson,"We must either subject the states to being injured by the power of the National Government, or the latter to being injured by the power of the States." That is it in a nutshell, and we see the path we took.
Notice too, how firmly etched the boundaries of the states are, after being colonies for 200 years. They are firmly accepted as big states and little states, leading to the debate over representing a state and representing a population or area of land. Why weren't the states made the same size? Notice how regions such as the northeast and midwest and southeast and west, etc tend to have states the same size. This indicates a breaking up of America into regions that have 3-7 states of roughly comparable sizes. But where is the notion for virginia and pennsylvania to give land to N.J. and Maryland, so that the power of a large state over a small state is negated? That is not considered and I don't know why. It is not considered. Either the notion of state citizenship is so great such is inconceivable, or perhaps if they start playing with the boundaries, there may be the danger of there not be a homogenizing federal government.
A strong federal government is designed for mercantilism, the easy transfer of large amounts of goods. The city states of antiquity may have been more sustainable. The senatorial system, of a republican system, republican meaning uniting a larger area, got around the hypocrisy of denying the kingdom of god through representative voting by essentially choosing themselves among their own class, and choosing the executive/committee.
The Roman Republic enjoyed democratic ways around voting for representatives. Good government was about having more players, than voting for representative; providing an order and unity and deliberation potential, rather than division and strife or arbitrary and capricious power.
The people could choose their tribunes among themselves, but these seemed done through a series of assemblies in piazzas. But the tribunes were an entry intro historical federalizm, whereby the people and tribes arbitrarily could not enter the records of history; but injected their interest through the office of tribune. This is analogous to the democratic party representing the people. They are the same effete story, oddly stabilizing history over hundreds of years, of not effecting the change the people want. And why is this? What can this common theme of not enacting a better world be thwarted by? Fear of reprisal by the universe or gods who like the world even on earth the way it is now. Higher forces without human warmth or funny flesh, may strike, were we to enact common sense and figure out how to activate the logical sense one hopes the people at least, may enjoy at times. What else could it be?
Health care. Obviously averting the negative, that call of the federal government, involves staving off the ill health of a nation; though each state could have its own wise approach; it is excercise that makes the people healthier. Promoting excercise is not the job of the federal government, but comes from the people. How to do this is consistent with a movement of the people, pagan understandings of evil gods, and resurgance of tribal consciousness-that links mind and body. How do we negotiate for better culture? Approach it from the perspective, it is not allowed; how to get it allowed.
Let us also consider this connundrum: If state legislatures rule state representatives to the federal government, this would be in a direction away from the federal government. If the people vote for representatives, and representatives be less beholden to state interest, then a cooler federal government. So if the people thought they enjoyed a state citizen ship primacy over a federal, they would want state legislatures to choose federal representatives. And yet, the people suffer strife more than the legislature, and the federal government is a force of peace among the states.
The smaller states, logically, wanted a federal government where the states mixed it up among themselves more, dynamism went their way. And New Jersey submitted a plan, of federalism, that adhered to items of the Articles of Federalism. The smaller states were in the north. In Europe they are buffer states. So if England attacked Boston and New York City, Americans could retreat to Pennsylvania and New York State, hole up there, and have a more American Civilization, should the english regain the states to the east of Pennsylvania and New York.
William Patterson resolved to "revise, correct and enlarge the Articles of Confederation to accomodate the goals of a federal government, (no war between states, trade and treaty uniformity), "exigencies of government, preservation of the Union"
First he said the United States could tax every import to pay for the government. Then the federal government could make Acts regulating both foreign and domestic trade. But as soon as you see the glimmer of states having different Acts regulating them, then you see how they become like foreign nations, and by this point all is lost. And Patterson concludes that if regulation is violated, the adjudication be by state court, with appeal to national. Now at least this specifically views the judiciary as a check upon trade violation; as opposed to being weilded upon the criminal per se. And yet proposing state courts handle trade issues defeats the uniformity cause of federalism, the mercantile principle. Had he suggested the federal courts strictly punish general violations of Acts regulating trade and commerce; there is a chance our federal government would consider, for instance replacing income tax with trade tarriffs between the states.
The next thoughts out of New Jersey, were the origncal FAIR tax idea. This is also about fundraising. Each person had to pay the same amount. However the state had to get it, and turn it in themselves to the federal government. Thus more populous states owed more. And if the states could not collect and pay, like the old tax collectors in the gospel, taxing on "commission", the federal goverment have regulations and get it from individuals themselves. However, implicit in this notion, is that really, tax dollars need go no farther than the salaries of senators, judges and president/and to an army. However, we really see a harmony here whereby if Franklin's idea of officials serving for free, and a Quaker notion of no army in peacetime prevailed, the federal government would cost very little, if not be free. From here we may also see a notion of piece between european countries being grounded in not having peacetime armies. The suggested genuine idea here is that if all nations agree to not have an army, or certain sections of earth agree not to have an army, costly wars may be averted constantly. But what would the suffering universe say to that? And how real is this level of not having wars? There is a deeper sitation and politic on earth involving the universe itself.
Patterson mentions judges should not get raises, investing them in deflation, nor have salaries dimished, or fear retribution. Regardless of what you think of permanent judges and justice, a necessary evil perhaps, a metaphysic, Patterson strikes another jewel by specifically mentioned what a judiciary should be about; in that its focus should not be on criminal law; but the impeachment of federal officers (not the senate) and this is a stronger view of the judiciary, and to put it in modern terms, the judiciary would deal with those scofflaws at the U.N. who never have to pay their parking tickets, the pirates from Somali and hostage/POWs from arab worlds, actively help out in treaty construction; rendering the judiciary a negotiating wisdom, perhaps freeing guitanamo bay in return for safety, trade issues questioning existing treaties, and to make sure taxes get collected. Yet remember, Patterson's initial proposal suggested funding the United States government through a tax on imports.
The New Jersey plan then provides for a supreme judiciary; which can enforce its decisions through the executive summoning of troops from the states, to deal with the uncompelled to follow these acts. This last part, the summoning of troops from the states, is risky obviously towards preserving the Union with a strong government. However, the prejudice to a peacetime without much standing army, gives it consistency. Yet the suggestion of the judiciary as the initiator of troops to fullfill its wishes, is intriguing.
The N.J. plan quickly closes out calling for a discussion of the process of admitting new states; that the requirements for citizenship be the same in all states; and that states be concerned with crime. This last of course dangerous to associate the punishment of an individual with a government grounded in history and therefore ultimate lies. Yet N.J. cites that reality, mixing.
See really the medieval dealt a blow to the judiciary and higher conceptions of justice. It's quite possible to prefer a cool monarch to 500 stuck up senators; I mean right there, there's 1/500th of the number of people you have to worry about; But when courts of kings and monarchs assume courts of justice, and there are too few political players to necessitate a watchful eye, and besides, the king is the justice system; the judiciary falls from ideals, to nothing really, and often merely the semi-arbitrary defense of the king; which must extend into criminal matters as they rock the boat of kingdom. So the British judiary had long corroded and rusted into a focus on crime and petty crime, because it wasn't allowed to focus on the higher classes. While it is easy to provide a senate and legislative, even in the Roman Republic itself, which after the long reign of five consecutive good kinds of over 200 years, was run by a Senate for a long time before, as I said, the people, the army in particular, demanded and politically fought for a judiciary on their terms. In other words, neither the senators and founders of The Roman Republic, or The United States, created a viable, realistic judiciary; America can learn from this history that the people, and nation must assert a judiciary that allows the people liscence to adjudicate criminal matters, and the government to adjudicate legal issues. In the meantime, the shortest article, merely a paragraph and a half, structures the judiciary, and the distance to The Kingdom of God, from federal and state government, is so great, that there is a perpetual current of anger, through anger at negative manipulations of the kingdom of god, and themselves for manifesting reactions grounded on an individuality that isn't there.
Another analysis involves mercantilism, which is well represented, and even proposed as a requirement for senate by Alexander Hamilton, because mercantilists don't have specific interests, the way plumbers or farmers might be passionately for plumbing and farming, Mercantilism: Mercantilsm is about enabling the reality of large populations, by shipping food from one area, to vast urban/suburban areas, whose economy by grounded in less wholesome spirit. The notion of America intended for a large population, if we calculate the worth of the individual to a god of the universe, this is a form of payment; analysis may negotiate.
Now we scholars await what the delegates debated about the New Jersey Plan. Remember, there was the Virginia Plan, which would eventually win out; but N.J. offered formidably entertaining debate, as it craftily sought a more loose knit confederation, sturdy, but faintly whimsical. Now as I remember the Virginia plan, it basically had five goals, and the point was to do whatever it took to achieve them. The means to the goals was half the stuff. The goals themselves, we should have memorized by now; common defense, no war within the states, regulated commerce, uniform treaties,legal superiority, anti-rebellion. "Eliminating war and tension between the states. Secure a peacetime prosperity. Prevent internal insurrection. "Be paramount to state constitutions"."
On a side note, I just walked around the "fountain" outside the Woodrow Wilson School of Internation Stuff, Princeton University, where people wade in summer nights, and the younger generation will strum guitars and people sit in groups; and not one of them knew what the five goals of the Virgnia Plan was. I mean we should just stop funding school in hopes the students will be more likely to come across and know The Virgnia Plan on their own.
I have to differentiate between what someone means, and how well they say it. Certainly Patterson leads with a broad judgement against the Virginia Plan as 1) It's approval by the convention would overstep the bounds the state and the people placed in it. These delegates were not really elected people. "IF the confederacy was radically wrong, let us return to the states and receive larger powers, (not just assume them) I can not speak for my sentiments, but the sentiments of those who sent me….Our object is not so much a government as may be best in itself…but as our consituents authorized us to prepare….and they approve."
Who can argue with these truths. We see the ways and means of democracy, in the expedient quality of this convention towards generating a federal government, whereas the democracy a convention less expedient and more gracious to state boundaries would adopt, is almost considered too risky, in this passion for the peace of federalism, that in turn allows a great population in America.
Then Patterson tries to stake out the domain of each state having a critical vote, in that decisions require a unaminious consensus. This is the way hippies think; not a vote for each state, but a negative by any state is a veto on the project, till all see it that way.
We learn how the two last states to join the confederacy were maryland and N.J.. N.J. objecting to federal regulation of commerce; probably because goods pass through here; hopefully economic creativity; and maryland refusing because the federal government could reign in new terroritories as they see fit.
Frankly without prejudice, the key to state sovereignty is making state federal representative beholden to a state legislature that appoints them, not being voted in by the people. In the Roman Republic, the Senators would appoint the executive/s. A federal system without each state having one vote, would delete the indiosyncrasies of each state. Thus, there shouldn't be a congress, only a senate. The check and balance of congress and senate, doesn't apply, Patterson covered, because there is enough dissension among the states. The kernel takes hold, that at a federal level, the common interest is seen strongly enough, to not require the check of congress; whereas at a state level, Patterson goes on, where factionalism may reign, two houses should be necessary. If the people complain that congress is weak, the people will give congress more power. Let's not get in a tizzy, and check out what happens slowly, at behest and recourse to the people. We love ya, but we gotta stay cool.
The Virginia plan established the triumverate of federal agency, unalligned as the judiciary initiates, as the means to establish its goals. Patterson is speaking is a debate style designed to cover many points and colors within a short period of time. He's smarter than Madison, but more pressed and harried. Mr Patterson concluded with a very Christie like thought, which is that if you just have a senate (which would decrease the nationalism wrought by a lower house) you save a lot of money, a lower house in congress is simply too many hundreds of salaries to pay; and his tenor assumes, a freedom from peacetime standing army; because really the two main costs primed here are the salaries of legislatures, and as necessary, the army. The army, Patterson covers, need not be drawn from states, as much as provided by the federal government, in that maybe that quanitity of the federal government army, be equal to many soldiers drawn of states; but instead of pacificism being asserted, it is promised quietly, as there wasn't war between the states, that's the main point; to outwardly deliberate pacificism breeds a minor point compared to the chosen major point of peacetime prosperity so the population may grow.
Mr Wilson pointed to the differences between the Virginia and New Jersey Plans. N.J. wanted one singular legislature, Virgnia two, maybe three. N.J. wanted the legislature elected by the state legislature (towards State sovereignty) The Virginia Plan wanted legislatures elected by the people (to generate nationalism (at the expense of honesty regarding the real politic of the kingdom of god, in which the sun enjoys and lives what hapens)). The Virginia plan wanted representation proportional to size of State. The N.J. plan wanted each state an equal vote. The Virgnia Plan wanted one executive at the helm, the N.J. plan, a plurality. (Think of the caucusing that led to this succinctity). In federal decisions of the former, the more people behind an idea, would win; but with N.J., smaller states could defeat in ideas larger states of more people. 6) The Virginia plan allowed the states no autonomy in trade regulation. 7) Would the federal government rule through law, or persuasion? 8) N.J. argued for a more accesible plan to remove executives from office: By a plurality of state heads. The Virginia Plan granted a liscence to congress to explore, whereas the N.J. plan made congress stuck to its laws. The N.J. plan holds back the judiciary from prosecuting all disturbance of the peace, whereas Virgnia, doesn't merely focus on treaties and particular legal points. Mr. Wilson concludes discussing the profundity, that the citizens of a state, will not find being national citizens demeaning, but a relief. Mr. Wilson from Pennsylvania fills out and resummarizes succintly the issues of Mr. Patterson from N.J..
From this record of the constitutional convention of 1787, we see there was a lot of discussion, not recorded, manifested is asserting contentions for a plural executive, or only one federal legislature. There must have been a lot of caucusing an exchange because these speeches, or their summaries, contain the conclusions of these discussions, rather than their path.
Congress is a single body that does not stand on the people, Mr. Wilson said. So can voters derive the policies they want from congress, through lobby, or election? Or is congress such an entity onto itself, that it by nature is not beholden to the people, but national interest, as seen, so that it can't be beholden to the people. Just how has any government made the lives of its people better? Ending child labor laws? However, in this across the board discussion of government; Wilson says the danger of legislative tyranny requires two houses. But has the two house system ended the unique legislative tyranny we see today? Usually, the two houses vote together; certainly there has not been seen a clearly defined issue of an erroneous house on one part, and a senate that checks it on the other, or vice versa. Checks and balances, without a judiciary truly being used for legal matters as it should, at most is about handling wars well; which we haven't been doing. The federal government is removed enough, that state governments need to step in and lead their people.
Mr Wilson then speaks against a plural executive, that they will not get along, or exhibit the responsibility of one man. This I totally disgree with, as classical times flourished with a plural executive of a year term. The tendency to one executive leader, stems from the tradition of kings, and the fear that requires one stern leader to lead, one in the executive is more conservative, and less dynamic; and overrun in the pursuit of indian lands.
Yet Mr. Randolph added that the times are dire enough to require the conservativism of one in the executive; the shift to restate federalism, important enough to not take the dynamic risks of a plural executive; and yet today, why is there no mode to consider such governmental change?
As we see there is a unique highlighting of the ways and means to desired goals, as well as the goals themselves, likewise, in nearby octave, the debate whether the convention is compelled to do what is right and necessary, or be beholden to the will of states and people back home? Mr. Randolph argues these constitutional matters must be argued by the states together here, rather than by individual states,singularily at home. The issue of giving up the sovereignty of your state, its allegiance, in favor of the benefits of a national sovereignty, may not have seemed that easy back then, a bit of manifest destiny. Yet when the virginians place an urgency on the situation, I do not know what to think, having not read the papers of current events back then. This state versus nation debate, is very relevant and needed in our time; such as interstate regional councils.
The New Jersey Plan, towards the end of the debate, was specifically said to include an executive of three, of South, Middle and Northern States, reminding us of the prevailing belief that different regions, had different political tendencies. Is this true today? Are different regions prone to different views? Should we take more into account the state a senator on a vote is from, rather than his party? By derailing such executive structure, regional differences are downplayed; but by how much, and is that good? Did the representatives know or care about, the sacrifice of state sovereignty and identity that would ensue? The abscence of state autonomy and allegiance. Was that independent political evolution important to them as members of states,and the people? Were the people really worried about wars between the states, or insurrections, or was that just played on, as history willing events? Was the upcoming leadership of federal government, known to thwart creativity at a state level? Wasn't there some way, through contracts or treaty could be contracted, that appeal to everyone? It's not so much the security blanket of federalism, as the faith in, and leadership of the state, that may not be allowed to surpass in wisdom and stature, the stateliness of federal government. Or could a state with innovation and legislation wisdom shine so great as to take the lead from the federal government? Firmly relegate the federal government to a negative check on the negative, and towards a better America, state . legislative innovation shine a light? To this day, the good things each state has, in comparison to other states, are not known. Our education does not teach us to compare and contrast the states, towards happier politics and lives.
Madison and Hamilton were the big guns guiding the eventuality of federalism and national legislature. But already we see how a national legislature, by nature cannot be wiser than state legislature, because state legislature has a more intimate knowledge and sophisticated care, ideally for its smaller area. And yet that can't encroach upon federal fame, without pointing to the calculated lack of leadership coming from the federal government and the federal governments point, to avert negatives. In other words, the federal government must be seen to avert negatives, without glory and ego, with relevance; and state governments seen as a natural source for leadership and innovation.
Now Hamilton will speak in a guiding way, distracting from the N.J. plan, and leading then to an also long speech by Madison, upon which the convention would return to hammer out the exigencies of the Virginia Plan. Hamilton and Madison are the big guns for the federal constitution we have. The conservatism of a one person executive, instead of several from several regions, is out of a fear that if we aim too high or even for too much good, we are doomed by an evil god. Even though this is merely government; Evil god, which paganism understands does rule us, and can't be mentioned in a christian age, where Christ is merely to lead us, and hopefully to a truer world than the government operates on. What we must ask, is if Christ was meant to combat the government of the classical pagan checks and balance world, or the barbarian and medieval worlds, antiguity bequeathed through the corruption of the Roman Empire? For with the return to a neo classical nonmedieval world, so perhaps, christianity is inadequate, and we must return to harmless autonomies of the people and a paganism aware of an evil god, that has thwarted history, and the good movement. Likewise, while the kingdom of god points us in the right direction, so a pagan sense of an evil god, explains what has thwarted that good direction. Thus without paganism, and without even much success recorded in history by the ancient world, beyond innovation and into actual records of a greater life; as America has fallen into that failure of the party of the people to assert propiety and love in the media; so our founders aimed for less, in the security of achieving it, through things like a one man executive, and weak judiciary—-Yet the Jersey Plan, did aim for a greater, if riskier ideal. And for these riskier yet more enlightened and faithful ideals to be returned to, we might to reconsider christianity, for or with the pagan notion of an evil god, or gods. This itself though is a metaphysical situation, whereby merely to shift to this understanding of an evil god, might result in a backlash or onslaught from the universe. Yet as we understand our heads are enjoined together, and may be held back together so, bringing it up and testing to see what happens must be tried.
It seems small states valued their autonomy and potential more than large states, which I'd like to examine. For one thing, the constriction of a small state increases the identity of its citizens with it. By the same token, the vastness of a large state, particularily with its inexperienced, vastly yet to be defined potential, I think, tends to blend in with an identity with the whole new world. Thus while a virginian, may think his state so vast as to incorporate the eastern seaboard, so the jerseyan, or delawaran, might see his very close borders as offering a particular hope of a particular identity and development uniquely to be within his borders.
This reason for the difference between large states and small states, in a nascent, fetal and scarred land, without reverence to earlier actual native tribes, this sense that larger states have forsaken some unique identity for a full grasping at the new world as a whole, plays out in a cagey new jersey plan, confident that having merely a senate of a less people, is more desirable to work with than a larger body, with a lower house or proportional representation that imbues and infuses the people with such a direct vote as to contradict state citizenry. Thus while appearing to be conservative, as wanting elections through a state legislature to federal office, so such would foment state interests, and grant more unique interest to its citizenry than direct voting. And wanting three presidents, one from each region, would also provide more leeway to play with, as would not entirely regimenting trade pacts through the states; thus New Jersey sought to open up the playing field by leveling it, possibly understanding itself as a port state, understood the value of financing a government through taxing imports; while gripped by a grief that maybe this may be too much for an evil god, and the sure thing Hamilton and Madison, the conservativeness of the kingdom of heaven in face of the universe, given the kingdom of the god, and so the prevailing sense even in today's metaphysics that make a consideration of me, held back by an unknown unspecified fear that an evil god may smite us as we do not know.
Now had we made the indians our friends, and they be alongside their conquerors in this deliberation, we may have learned of their paganism; for the notion of great forces beyond the sky does reign in hinduism and indian reservations; and any good christian will agree the people are held back by such even as unanalyzed rather than apathy or the rich and their media influence as liberals will claim.
Yet liberalism here, must be understood as a control of the soul. If the media made it apparent to individuals, as our heads are together, that the kingdom of god, there is no greater cause and tragedy than that; liberals would see that is what there is to care about, and how the natural concern about that through ignorance, rechanneled into causes that pale beside the kingdom of god.
The N.J. Plan wanted a cheap government. A house of representatives literally was too expensive, as was a large senate; and they believed a small senate to be easier to wield in the interests of states. But as it is now, there is very little pushing by any particular state, for its own interests. The adrenaline of potential sovereignty seems to have long worn off for an egotistical relation to America, and tired state legislatures; even though the prime reason for a federal government; a prosperous nation without war between the states, does not seem a concern.
As I said, then Alexander Hamilton spoke. And Hamilton was a monarchist, which he didn't admit in The Federalist Papers, but feels he should go on record here, at the convention in history. I would say the monarchial tendency, which may be fine and good with a good monarch, with an especially good person as a monarchist, but not as a form per se,to be routinely encouraged; flies in the face of history's path away from medieval kings and courts and justice from royalty, towards the classical, antique; away from the violent wars of Europe from egos of kings, and towards lesser, more contained wars, borne of issues, and tribal rivalries.
Our consciousness can understand our issues; but strives to understand the consciousness in the colonies. What does it mean to sacrifice autonomy for the greater good? The smaller states, had more precise concerns over this, knowing their autonomy would manifest greater concern for their land; probably greater concern for indians; as not all states would be automatically for pushing the indians west. Smaller states, being cozier, with less area to be concerned about; would have probably been more adaptable towards carving out a unique culture, and people, even a new life, and more manageable sustainability.
Yet we must point out, the mercantilism of a large nation, could create a prosperity that could pay for a the government of a large nation. A prosperity based on goods from other regions perhaps, whose alianation is consistent with forking over taxes; where self-sustaining small nation-states, prosperous by their sustainability, may not be so easy with the taxes, as the colonies weren't to England. Thus as we struggle with federal debt, as the colonist opposed taxes and then created a federal government as the states wouldn't pay the costs of a looser confederacy; it would be hypocritical not to see the cause to a new analysis of state/regional/federal government.
Hamilton advocated for a life-long king, amiss from the transition from medieval times. Governors, would be appointed by the federal government. He wanted a structure for strong leadership from a central place for the whole land. "Public Safetey and Happiness" was such a strong concern, that the convention could not hold itself back from the wisdom required. Whenever I hear the urgent tones of the strong federal government backs, I wonder and hear the wisps of playing on fear. Madison did understand the federal government as "'the federal idea'….since it is to operate on individuals" which today it certainly does, be a part of our consciousness. The issue of returning to the states for ideas to be ratified, had merits, but may hold back and risk the process.
Thinking more about why the big states like New York and Virginia, wanted a nation so, as I said, while the smaller ones were more deferential, again suggests a complex psychology, whereby larger states, having more, not only blended in with the entire land, not having as strict controll, their resources being more spread out; and they knew and felt this unity of nation would make them stronger militarily as a nation; even as that military sense comes from a sense of being out of control, not precisely in control. And likewise, there could be a fear coming from big states, that were they not united, they may fear eventually having to go to war with each other. Yet these psychological complexities, have not been brought up yet.
At the same time, Hamilton feared, that smaller states, allowed autonomy, may be ripe to be taken over by faction or demagogue; particularily if states controlled the votes of their federal representatives. "Men love power" he said. The constitutional convention is really about states giving up power, and puissance, for safety's sake. Nevertheless, it is probably true, especially if we don't scoff at the historical difficulty of contracts and treaties between states ensuring peace, there would be less soldiers and army, enemating out of one federal government, than several or many armies coming out of states which voted to have a peacetime standing army. And yet militias, local and state, may not be so bad, but inexpensive, empowering and saftey concerned. Hamilton argues though evil is avoided through relinquishing sovereignty to a national sovereignty.
The modus operandi, the metaphysic, for all these considerations, of government, which must have some value, for being so far away from what is truly important; the condition of the human; in Christian terms has to be described as this; the kingdom of god, is caused for or caused by the universe, the kingdom of heaven lives off this material world and human being. The Kingdom of heaven does not really care about the world of man; indeed, it creates and sells defects and tragedies within it, towards the savings and grace of the addition of more humans not altered into the kingdom of god. This is what we should be discussing.
Nevertheless, we place that metaphysic in context of an almost mathematical discussion of governmental form for America, or The New World, or Old Once Indian World; because no good things can happen in America without getting the indians back on board with some say and approval. The problem with the large state v. small state debate, was that psychological complexity of the large states naturally wanting to unite, to consumate their power, like a fire, rather than use autonomy to craft their own state; while at the same time, fearing having to fight other large states. Whereas small states, like N.J. generally wanted a cheap, weildy national government; because they did not have that psychology of power, but a genuine faith in state sovereignty. Hamilton says that were state legislatures to pick their federal representatives and there only be a small senate; then state prejudice would prevail in national government; something different to see in today's world as the federal government has rendered state prejudice and dispute between states null. It's logical to think small states, had they been allowed more autonomy, would have provided an inspirational example to large states, in care for their land; and rejection of war, for cultural care.
As I said, paradoxically, voting for a house of representives tricks the citizen of a state into the idea of a federal citizenship upon his consciousness; when the Roman Republic used democracy to get around voting; for voting ignores the reality of the kingdom of god. Thus were there more talk of allowing local peaceful assemblies to not only debate and decide local issues with ayes and nays, but when in on state and national issues that way; that would have etched a greater citizenship than voting at a federal level.
Hamilton, the prime architect of The Federalist Papers, which promoted the Constitution after the convention, was a monarchist, who idealized the British House of Lords, as those life-long positions, (and monarchy) ensured fairness, as they wouldn't bow down to pernicious and evil plans, not having to worry about their position or property. This ignores the fact life long positions do not motivate officials to make positive change, as they are fine. True, if good men are involved, it may be different; but such feudal remnants contingent on good men, not feudal form. So the leading advocate for the constitution comes from a monarchist perspective: That long term official stability generates the fairest view of the issue and interest from "adequate firmness….considering the amazing violence and turbulence of the democratic spirit." The historical problem here, the abscence we seek prescence of, to analyze the 1780's in America, was the extent and depth of violence and ill in the states and confederacy of that decade. Some mention is made of Shay's rebellion, and potential skirmishes between connecticut and pennsylvania, and an inability to pay revolutionary or current soldiers; But the anguish and anxiety and extent of that hard to guage. How big a deal was it? For the federal forces claim it is an urgent situation, without the record duly noting specific problems of those times.
Hamilton wanted a life long executive and senate, on the basis that would keep our officials clean from foreign interests and wars; ignoring the imperialism of the british system, and medieval wars between the egos of kings inflated by hereditary stature. Hamilton did specifically advocate for soley the senate being able to declare wars, though if attacked, the executive may take charge. And by having governors appointed by the national legislature, centralized power further cemented.
In conclusion, this speech indicates two things; that Hamilton goes on record revealing his monarchist views, the value of transparency, and that it reveals that the prime mover of the constitution comes from a monarchist background. Let me leave this speech with the notation that communism is highly centralized and has life long officials leaders. The difference being that this error in communism trickles down to interjections into the lives of citizens, whereas monarchies and house of lords, seem to block change, and mainly desire an order and stability that may pay the bills of government.
The convention largely ignored Hamilton's long speech, as it went against the winds of history they were playing with, and went on to provide opposition to the N.J. plan, in part from the monarchial wind of Hamilton's speech, blowing against the looser rules of the N.J. Plan.
There are two studies I would commission, were I one of Hamilton's life long senators or something. The first would be a study of what states in America do differently and to what result. The second would be a study of current events in the 1780's, the reality of the anxiety, or the simpleness of it; how bad was it? Bad enough to compell a federal government, or a red scare sort of thing, capitalized on to reign in what could be with a federal government?
Hamilton's mercantile interest in the federal government; he thought mercantilists were best able to decide policy without particular favor or interest, (don't know what to say to that) was important for a prosperous economy grounded in trade to pay for the federal government. Because were self-sustaining localities encouraged, that prosperity would not be as loyal to the federal government and pay taxes. Thus a somewhat diabolical anti-sustainable diverse local econony vicious circle created, whereby trade is facilitated by ruling out tariffs and a mercantile economy affording large population centers, that then pays through taxes what encourages it, ultimately at the expense of the intimate and careful concern a local area can pay to itself. And students of political science should note, that it was the monarchial wind through Hamilton, that blew against the sails of the jersey plan, preceding the debate of its opposition.
There is one more evil specious idea by Hamilton, which is very markedly pronounced in The Federalist Papers, of which he authored the majority of them. Because the state will protect it citizens from crime through a legal and penal system, the citizens will be indebted to and greatly value, their state. First of all, I see little grounds for that claim, having witnessed none of it in history. Second, it supports the very bad idea, that criminal prosecution and punishment be handled by the state, not the people. This detours government justice from representing the people, as justice naturally does, and from providing the traditional check on the other branches only a good judiciary can. And since the government is known farther from spirituality and truth and the Kingdom of God, criminal matters are best handled through forms of the people, as the people are closer to truth, and truth, necessary to decrease and handle crime.
The case for forms and structures handling criminal matters, is that they are best handled impartiality, rather than by the victim. And yet today, and in general, the legal system can forget how forgiving the people really are. Thus our legal system would be much milder handled in forms by the people, and reduce crime, and thus reduce prisons.
In contrast to Hamilton's point about the state government earning endearing loyalty by protecting its citizens, which is still a good thing, loyalty to the state, and positive identity as a citizen of your state, comes from the facilitation and behavior of social and sensible enterprises and cultures of the people. When I think of my friends who live in the state, I feel a loyalty and identity and culture to my state; that national citizenship glosses over; that must be focused on to etch, bring out and contrast the identities of other state cultures, to see what we've got.
But before approaching the opposition to the Jersey Plan of June 18th, let me speak briefly and try to show a little embryo of The Jersey Plan applied today.
You end the lower house, to save money and lessen government. You can even reduce the senators to one per state. You make the senator beholden to the state he represents regarding votes in the federal senate. In other words, either the state legislature, or the people on referemdums over the computer, with majority rule, order the senator to vote on federal issues the way the state majority wants to. An interesting issue is whether populations would shift to be in states whose politics were like themselves, and whether this would eventually lead to war, which the federal constitution was all about averting and has averted.
So then, thus, you make the national judiciary be in charge of and negotiator and overseer of contracts pacts and treaties between states. So if states do turn partisan, let them make trade pacts or something, that keeps peace, overlooked and scrutinized by the national judiciary. Try to generate all if possible funds for government by taxing imports, which would promote U.S. production. And in the executive office, make it a committee with one representative from 6 or 7 regions, with if you want, a top official, second and third one as well; though this is not necessary.
Let us remind ourselves, it is congress, the lower house, borne of general elections, that impresses the idea of federalism upon the consciousness. The difficulty of this language steps on propoganda. Voting, the greatest, can not come from the kingdom of god. Government is a function of wisdom. There can be more proximious greater impressions, than congress. Likewise, the judiciary may examine whether the constitution, which was really much made for its times, and unique capstone in history's timeline, would examine the relevancy of state and regional autonomy. Disprove the unnecessity of the reasons for the constitution, disprove the constitution. This is something rotating judges in transparancy may work. Whereas criminal matters, must be dealt with by the people, through a system where The Kingdom of God has been shown. The people could be divided up cause of area, or horroscope, or type I also thought, in the deliberations of complaints.
No document is meant to exist forever, perhaps save the most basic one of metaphysic; but it is truthful. In today's world, we wonder and try to understand how each state, former colony, could put its head on the chopping block, so to speak, lose its autonomy and ability to reason, to reason for itself, for the great reasoning structure of federal government. It is the giving up of state autonomy that provides the peacetime sorely sought by history through the federal constitution, not the federal constitution, per se. Goals are debated, and then the means to those goals must be debated.
Within the government/Christian world, this is very much like a metaphor. The people, struggling for salvation, in a sea of god, must give up their right way, to put their heads down humbly and reason with each other, allowing only the wisest words to be followed. To listen to me, several, if not many of you, must lie down yor heads and give in to me and be led, gently and calmly. Obviously as the statement of losing autonomy for the better reason of several, another key societal concept guys going out could stumble across, as achieved here towards good through me, has already been fulfilled metaphorically by America; and therefor once what the metaphor stands for has been fulfilled, the constitution may move on, to the needs and direction of a newer and different historical era.
Now when I said criminal matters might be handled by types, rather than areas; types are what could replace family; for family is one of the closest falsehoods pushed onto our interior circle. And I will explain. Family offers and provides some bond, supposed to be the deepest bond. Deepest bond is the knowledge of the kingdom of god, the human being; salvation is not fun. Well if families bonded on this knowledge, they would be against the reproduction of the kingdom of god, or human being, and therefore the family would stop.
And likewise, let us we shake off the kingdom of god's coil and the universe learns morality, or we do, for morality between the earth and the universe, must rule, even then we would breed by types I think, and the division of family by parents, seem creepy compared to be of those types, which have been around so long, or however it comes out.
Try to measure earth life with heaven life. There's obviously a quality of unpleasantness to it, and a detachment from the meaning of the sun going up and coming down, we had. There's a unity to it, holes, so to speak, where the material body is melded into and called home through the years. Meaning might be harder to find or less and so each other, is the meaning. Yet, Heaven too must be a unity, a subservience to all, at a societal, and uniquely, a practical level. Brains, and systems, rationing, oppression, allowance, is not harmonious with many little states, or is it.
Certainly the subservience the former colonies were facing was severe. Though a thoughtful state legislature, may show essential leadership, the grandeur of the federal government, while merely meant to be a "negative", has seemed unsurpassable, and making a positive difference in people's lives, largely unnoticed. As for giving up their militias, or standing armies, or right to call to arms, as several of the colonies has standing armies, or militias, several had laws not allowing standing armies in peacetime, and several had variations and degrees upon the two above, so often the bone of autonomy; I feel the sentiments of the convention for a national defense, consistent with the N.J.'s plan for inexpensive and less government; comprised an understanding of saved costs, and increased strategy, with a central army, and this can not be argued with. Yet, the act of trading, is another autonomy of state, that holds onto and trys to develope the embryo of self-caring, yet this too, like state armies, was not to be allowed, at this point in history, so severe was the emphasis on peacetime in the states, victory against indians, and strong world player, enabling rapid population growth. But N.J. thought, with a national judiciary monitoring trade pacts, that autonomy could be saved, and nothing really bad happen, except a fragmenting of national interest, whereby the very assertions of states ruling opionions more than political parties, as intended to be tested, may be.
In The Anti-Federalist Papers minutes of the Constitutional Covention on June 19th, James Madison made a long speech against the N.J. plan. A lot of it was verbiage, that did extend upon the notion that individuals give up rights for a society that is better, than the state of nature, a free society means perhaps people give up rights in return for peace. However Madison's attack on N.J.'s claim that the confederacy can't dissolve unless all the states agree; I never heard Patterson say that, or a summation by Pennsylvania mention such. While that ideal of consensus ruling a confederacy, a consensus that must be unanimious or not pass, is an interesting means, and perhaps consistent with advocation of the confederacy, but duly noted as not cited.
In the end, the states voted 7-3 to table the N.J. Plan and return to the Virginia plan. I see it, in typical federal fashion, of a preponderance of representation inhibiting wide-spread exhuberance for an idea. It was already that stodgy, and without the firm assertion of states allied to the N.J. plan, history demanded the conservative order of the Virginia Plan. But one can see the concern for new states entering the Union. They would automatically agree, and therefore offer none of the forms of criticism from an outsider.
Mr. Madison thought the principles of the confederacy, were not principles to strengthen, and cited 5 or 6 confederacies in history that had frequent wars among themselves, as confederacies will challenge each other within. For confederacies lead to weak central leadership, and rowdier and quieter members. If the cause was to preserve the Union, with strong centralized government, the N.J. plan would not achieve that. And that is true. But what must be noted by Mr. Madison is the N.J. plan might have had in its sites a bead on some disintigration, but a powerful and good disintegration, administered federally or nationally, with wise compacts a judiciary focused on, a rule of law between states, internationally experimented with. Can we now make a compact to peace? Or is the sacrifice ever near?
The second point of the Union, Mr. Madison said, was, "That will provide a government that will remedy the evils felt by the states both in their united and individual capacity."
Interestingly, Mr. Madison does not deride the encouragement of individual trade pacts by states as an error leading to war; but that different deals with foreign nations will add to the evergrowing complaints regarding trade pacts and treaties from foreign governments, and lead to attacks from Europe.
Mr Madison maintained states having wars with the indians was inappropiate, as two or three states recently had engaged so; and this was sure to tip the ship of state; and that N.J. and P.A. as well as Virginia and Maryland, had made pacts uniting them against the indians; and this too tipped the balance of power between the former colonies.
War aside, the Jersey Plan, allowed states to make pacts trading with the indians, as some former colonies had done. This would have been very helpful towards seeing the usefulness of the interior culture through the value of trading partnership. So this was cruelly cut by the Virginia Plan. For Trade and Arms encroach upon the Federal Form. As do standing armies by the states. Massachussets raised a standing army, Madison accussed of currently augmenting, and things like that encroach upon the federal form.
There were almost skirmishes between Connecticut and Pennsylvania over some land some where, and a confederate court, according to Madison, ruled agains Connecticut, which Connecticut required to be bribed with terratory to accept; whereas with a strong federal government, these disputes and decisions wouldn't be handled so with bribery.
Madison also objected to the jersey plan, again without strengthening the points of the jersey plan, for mandating the ratification of the constitution by state legislatures, rather than the people, which would forever beholden federal officials to state legislatures. That the Jersey Plan made the National Judiciary an appellate body to state courts, meant the National Government would not be able to deal with state aquitals in criminal court. Take that for what it is. The Federal Court wanted to handle criminals, where Hamilton cites the defense of property through state conduct, endearing of the state to citizens. Likewise, criminal matters need not be the concern of federal courts.
Mr. Madison showed that the weak confederacy failed to support its own rules of equality to all citizens in whichever state, when Virginia and Maryland favored its own citizens; which might be a desirable development of culture. A rule failed to be enforced, but maybe for good cause; such is the weather of a confederacy. Likewise, paper money, was not desirable from each state, particularily as there were debtor and creditor states, the creditors suffering from paper money from debtors. Mr. Madison also worried whether the jersey plan could help against insurrections such as Shay's Rebellion; is of the opinion the confederate ideals don't stop states from treading on each other, or being trod upon.
So things that ran afoul with the virginia plan, that rocked the boat, were states fighting and trading with the indians, and how that led to Pacts between States. Certainly a plural executive, would have given more conscience and respect to the indians. Likewise, seeing them as trading partners would have given white and state allies to the indians. The strong government was very diligent about outlawing any potential state behavior that could fragment the union; but this strong central control, never understood the value of indian culture. Maybe the deprivation of state rights, necessary to avoid a european like situation of constant and intermittent warfar, and the destruction and removal of Indian ways, went together. The avoidance of war among the states, and the total onslaught upon the indians, balanced each other, on a fulcrum of very strong central government. A central government that wasn't meant to encroach upon the way of life or rights of individuals, that is true, if anything to maintain peacetime; conservatives are always saying thing, and it is true and part of the beauty of the constitution is its limited powers; but what conservatives ignore that the constitution was designed to do, was limit and encroach and stultify what your state and state culture could be. The affront of the constitution is to the state, not the individual, to sustainability, and not homogeniety, to preserving nature, and not population growth, to state culture and creative state legislation, not individual rights per se, but the culture than manifests the individual. The people not only have to be sold on federal government, and voting for representatives in polling booths, the magnet of government can not attract their eyes to their nearby and cultural statewide allegiance.
So far there are two items the convention has missed. Ensuring local decision-making by the people in peaceful assemblies with ayes and nays; which was one of the ways the roman republic justified its expansion through some regulation of other tribes in Italy; and understanding a judiciary of the people, and the pointed division of justice between legal and government issues, and criminal matters. Now discerning that the people handled criminal matters in tribal courts, is not easy; as Livy and Herodotus do not cite such so; But insofar as that is the case I make; so in freudian fashion, we interpret Hamilton's confidence that a state protecting its people from crime, will be so endearing, is really the absent hollow of the oposite, that the people punishing criminals, from their realm of probably more forgiving hearts, Hamilton falls into through the ignorance of this tribal reality, and pagan reality, that went hand in hand with the checks and balances of innovative and complex politics of anitiquity that raised the standard of the mans' self-conception in history. When Madison objects to a New Jersey plan on grounds that the appelate stature of federal courts, will not be able to try men aquited in state court of criminal matters; is another freudian manifestation of the ignorance, towards a demand for total control of the judiciary, by federal government. Prosecuting criminals, would be another way, for the federal government to diligently prevent growing state autonomy. Prosecuting criminals might be intended for family and friends councils,or tribal or neighborhood tribunals; allowing state judiciary to focus on government ethics, and ethical policy. The state as a court for criminals, in my mind is a necessary last resort, not a first inclination.
I believe, in a general, simplistic way, the milenium before Christ, was the greatest millenium in history. Now, having had two rough mileniums, with late advantage coupled with huge risks and losses, the mechanized age, we can seek a world of peace, in this new millenium, out of the stability, the holding together of American States, by a national government, engendered. For the states are such good friends now, that even fifty new countries, like old Europe, wouldn't war or dispute boundaries, or prey through trade advantage, esp with a strong federal judiciary to look after those points. From this demonstration of peace between 50 new countries, might not such be the capstone for a normalcy of peace, something outside of Serbia and the old balkan countries, Europe has demonstrated among itself since 1945. The wars have been in warmer parts overseas; and this is wrong too. Somehow, as peacetime is the established norm, so must earth's natural resource and native economy, not spill into waste and unnecessary market. And a strict accounting of the sins that cause such can enable vision. Then Earth may quiet down a bit, the birthrate that reproduces the kingdom of god, wisely reduced, and Earth enjoy hopefully a few hundred years of rest. But how to negotiate for the metaphysical change?
The beauty of the N.J. plan, was that is did allow states to make pacts with other states. N.J. was known for this enterprising behavior. Yet this enterprise was seen as a risk to the peacetime prosperity the states could insure through a federal government that allowed such creativity; even though said creativity would lean on mercantilism with sustainability, and not necessary spawn the growth and population reminiscient of America's destiny.
Moving back to a time where each state had its own currency, is essential in the 2000's towards promoting sustainability. Yet Madison states a state in debt to another state could just print paper money, and thus the debt-worth never paid off. And this is a valid point, yet think how wise the challenge of its resolution with wise contract have made us? Again, there is nothing the spiritual does not teach us, if not to take on challenges, and that there is a great challenge. How much is the Kingdom of God, a status quo, unable to be changed? How murderous is the universe? What Mr. Madison fails to see is the spirit of the Jersey plan. In that while history resonates for the national government; might not we beat that with The Plan's sophistication? When Madison examples the failure of past confederacies to promote peace; he neglects their promotion of autonomy, sustainability and respect of nature.
Madison ably points out, that states making pacts, may be making pacts with foreign governments, and manipulatively swayed by foreign affairs. Again, this objection, worked out, would fund wise principles. The conservative spirit is up against a more risk-taking liberal one. Do we sit still and engender more? Or do we risk-take and shore our foundation, foundations which need shoring today?
Madison ably points out, that the smaller states may be preyed upon by larger states, would each state become its own country; yet Mr. Patterson said a federal judiciary, with the power of an army, would tend that concern. Madison says were the union to divide up into two confederacies, the smaller states may be preyed upon by larger; and he responds to the expediency suggested of repartitioning the union into 13 equal parts so there isn't the disparity Delaware and Virginia suggest as incompatible with cultural differences. Cultural differences should be encouraged, we need many cultural paths, lest some be thwarted by Evil.
The idea of repartioning the states, is met by Madison, with the curious conviction that our constitution could allow it to happen on its own, one parcel at a time, as per desire. Would our constitution allow N.J. and Pa to merge and be cut in half? If both state legislature's desired such, that focus on form, would show form to unite the thinking of our people, rather than substance and issue, the context for dealin with substance and issue; the concern of constitutional conventions.
Dr. Johnson, from Connecticut asserts, the point of the Jersey plan to preserve the individuality of the states, must be contrasted with how much the Virginia plan actually destroys such. He then cites Hamilton as "boldly" contending for the abolition of state governments in toto. I can not imagine such homegenizing as being anything but evil, a manifestation of widgets more than culture, America can be claim today pervasive. Like the idea of repartioning states, towards equality, the idea of abolishing state governments is new to us, though considered long ago, and begs discussion.
Yet more glaringly, I have to wonder, just where the conflict and tension between states went. That too, the tension between states, is hard to imagine as ever having existed; and though absent, we must ask whether it is good, and motivating: States would be able to distribute economic fuel more judiciously than the nation; as the giver would know the beneficiary, and this greater personifying resonate wiser economy. We can say consumerism, and the market economy, desires heavier people eating more: even as we see that principle nullifies wisdom.
Dr. Johnson, by contrasting the Virginia Plan, to Colonel Hamilton's advocacy for the abolition of state government; makes the Virginia plan seem a compromise on the subject; though it is not really a compromise except by Hamilton's radical advocacy: Such is a logical example of fallacy in America's beginning we must expose, to uproot.
Dr. Johnson seems to say state autonomy, while desired, must not intrude on national deliberations. Today, the object of that concern has been so extinguished, how do we develope its good part, a healthy competition between states in resolving problems? Must resolve by Virgnian or New Jersey to become greater economic powers, or state pillars, grate against the perceived weakness of Pennsylvania and Delaware? Is healthy competition, necessary and not so bad? Is the nature of government partly grounded in competing with other governments; and is that what has been lost?
Back then, they admitted, there'd be a rivalry between the national government, and government of the states. It is easy to see how the national intrudes on the states, but how does the state intrude on the national? What is the big deal about states handling immigration and health care ideas? Yet the rivalry between state and national government, per form, can not have the symbiotic effect of a rivalry between equal governments. It is a negative rivalry, of a large circle, versus a much smaller one within it; they are not designed to compliment each other.
Mr Wilson, of Pennsylvania, cites the plan to have one house appointed by state legislatures. This would enable states to have a say in national council. He defers to the national government, parrying such, with the idea of the national government, having a small house in each state government; saying what is true for one interest, true for the other. Yet he ignores the form, that the larger circle of national government, so contains the much smaller circle of state government, that the smaller circle is due a check on the larger, rather than the larger needing to increase its check. And yet should a state tend to subvert the union, such check prove necessary.
Mr Wilson failed to see a danger to the states from national government; though the limitation of state administration weaken and less the political body of the state. Nor would large states be able to band together, without alarming the whole nation. This latter point is difficult to conceive in today's world. Some remnant of it descends in the importance of certain larger states in deciding presidential elections; but the larger states have different allegiances, and therefore don't unite in conspiracy. Nor do we have much of a clue as to what that conspiracy would amount to.
It was impossible for Mr. Wilson to see, that national government does not have the interests of the state at hand; nor that state governments may not have the interests of the people at hand. He fails to see how state governments tend to reinforce themselves, that the state becomes like a person, defending himself from change, as he is the status quo. He fails to see how the federal government will take on more and more, and ITS ego, never delegate such concerns to state government; to a point where the federal government is not a preventer of Evil, but an attempter of solutions, it is not designed to create.
Is this lack of focus intention, and another example of specious reasoning that must be exposed to be uprooted? How often today do we see the shennanigan of extremism moving a compromise towards its interest? Or the ballyhooing of legitimate concerns prevail? It's an unfortunate tradition of dirty politics in America, we may educate our people to prevail over.
Mr Madison saw more clearly that the states could cause rancor, nor denied national government could inhibit state health. (Thus showing Mr. Wilson adopting the tactic of moving the compromise the national way through an purposeful ignorant extremism.) As both are potentially true; a national government moderates states, states may have different interests. But in today's world, states seem to have the same interests; everything is so swaddled, so to speak, as society is, in context of its metaphysic and control. Arguing the tendency of confederacies to anarchy, implying our states would be in conflict and tension with each other, if freed from the national government. Yet Madison claims, such was exactly the case in his last ten years. Thus the current events of the 1780's like the annals of Rome, must be illuminated, specifically. As Livy sought to repair the morals of his Rome, with stories of old Rome, so we must examine the convention, to remedy our current problems.
Madison maintains that as state legistures respect local township autonomies, so naturally would national government respect state legislatures. Yet national government takes away the domain of state governments more and more every year. And state legislatures, in N.J. at least, abridged local decision making in peaceful assembly, by incorporating towns with local officials, per state constitution. Furthermore, in N.J., the state for decades, in many instances, made decisions for the township; either stultifying township polity neglecting peaceful assembly; or letting a few decide for many locally, when all present should go aye or nay on local issues. This statement by Madison, has been shown by history to be patently untrue. You may think, a state wants a strong town, but the state, as Aristotle said, is like a body, a person; it wants itself. You may think a federal government wants strong states, but national government is designed to inhibit state strength so the states don't conflict each other.
Despite Madison's assertion to the oposite, safeguards were and are needed to protect the states, specifically State's Ability to find their own unique solutions, per their own culture, for their problems. Some limitation upon the federal government by the states seems necessary. Perhaps a council of representatives of states, voting as state legislatures desire, to offer opinions. Perhaps these advisory councils should be regional. But everything is so obviously a metaphysic, rather than reasonable, that the flow to these changes, hard to find.
The Virgnia Plan specifically found state governments necessary, and not to be abolished, acknowledging the imperfection of national government caring about so nook and crannied an area as America. Is the work harmony between federal and state government flowing? State governments are necessary, according to Madison, not because the federal government abuses power; but because it would imperfectly apply power. Yet education, a messy economy, a lack of spirituality; as their genesis be national government; so there be an abuse of power. Indeed, today the federal government is often acussed of a new abuse of power, and persistent old ones.
Madison claims, if we could do away with state governments, the people would be no less free. This fails to see federal government as a necessary evil, as the lesser of the evil of wars betweens states; self-contradictorily. The people of smaller states are not more free than the people of larger states. And yet the smaller states, though concentrated in the north east, do seem to have stronger economies than the larger states. And maybe higher costs of living as well. There is more freedom in Florida, where the penalties for pot are much less than in N.J., and there is no requirement to register or inspect vehicles. Yet were each state government to be abolished, arguing against and changing policy would be harder. And yet there is no attack on the general sustenancy of the way of life; without spiritual understandings, or common values asserted, that we live in a surreal unreasonable society; how can this even be considered. So if we did find the form of a reasonable, common-value-asserting society, certainly, with the different humours of cultures, state governments would be the more desirable foil to change than one large government. Look how difficult it has been to stop war. Whereas if each state had a vote in whether there be a war; the opposition would effectively coalesce in success. Would each state discuss our youth's education, there'd be a greater chance than the form of congress today.
Madison dramatically rehashes the conflict recognizing the possibility of the national government to absorb state governments, no big deal to him, but history has shown its hand against such; likewise the state impulse to independence has not been shown either; because the leadership to the people comes from the national not state government; because debate is in the media, and the media focuses on the most power, and the most power lies in National Government.
With assertions history refuted, the convention moved on to the issue of length of terms for Senators. To put this in context of the classical form of the Roman Republic; Senators were expected to be rich, have long terms, decide among themselves who be Senators; whereas the executive branch, serve only a year, and be a committee with a leader or two, which may include the lower classes, (and a judiciary of the lower class checking immoral legislation and administrative folly). Were senatorial long terms or short terms, better.
Legend has it, Senates were good and necessary to protect the state from Kings, or Presidents. After five good long serving Kings in Ancient Rome the wealthy rose up and went with a collective body making decisions, rather than one king.
Madison states the issue as such: A senate protects the people from a bad executive. And a senate protects the people from the people's potential stupidity by being wiser than the people. Of the former, the democrats consistently fail to stand up to republican presidents, as the metaphysic of power overruns their convictions; whereby republicans be so of the metaphysic of power, that they stand up well to democratic presidents. As to the the latter; well the Senate may not have earned the trust of the people; nor the people been so vituperous as not need the Senate's cool mild logic.
You may see the tea party as emotional enough to be wisely suppressed by the Senate, or the hippies to be wise enough to be suppressed by the power of the senate; Yet the tea party is rippling through the senate, and the hippies, and nonmaterial understandings, needed by our country. So really, the debate should be contextualized as what facilitates wise leadership by the Senate; rather than seeing the Senate as a check on the people, or the ruler; be seen as an innovative and searching and leading body on its own; for which it is thoroughly dwarfed by the executive; for which we'd lessen the term of the executive, so as to supplement the power of the Senate, while imposing a dynamism and vigour to the executive, as per its shortened term. In other words, the leadership of the Senate comes from not magnifying the power of the executive. It may be said the leadership of the senate would come developing a tradition of leadership from the Senate. While America has had more than a few notable senators, America should seek notable Senates, not Senators, a venerable and moral institution and honor, that works well together; that's where leadership comes from, a body working together, that's the tradition to develope. Perhaps if the Senate authorized more power and domain to state legislatures, more leadership be concentrated in the Senate.
Madison cites the checks and balances of three bodies of national government, as able to stifle the course of betrayal of the people by those in power. I'm not so sure History has shown this to work. Perhaps it is an improvement. Madison then cites Senators as having to be of a more informed and greater charactor than the people. Well certainly that is the idea; but I often see how the next person I meet have greater capability to lead, by virtue that the people are living the life of troubles society has, then Senators who being so high and honored, are necessarily removed from. Yes you want educated people deliberating aid to Pakistan. But that is not such a hard debate. The ideal of Senators being the enlightened people culled from the people, I am not so sure. A healthy awareness of what really is, and how the people really are; a Senate that leads within its context, and averts disasters, is consistent with a national government designed to do the same. In other words, there is no need to be an idealist and aim so high with the Senate; improvement over medieval forms it be, but to be common sensical, and hope for a Senate that is aware of metaphysical limitations, enlightened in that sense, of how things can be; but regarding policy or potential, an enlightened Senator isn't really required. It takes a dose of reality.
So when Madison says, "a people….as well as a numerous body of representives (ie the lower house)….were liable to err, from fickleness and passion. A necessary fence against this danger, would be to select a portion of enlightened citizens…"…When Madison says, A Senate, "is to protect a people against their rulers…And to protect the people themselves against … transient impressions…"
I think we see how moving forward means exposing the reasoning of our founders, and debunking, now revering James Madison, at least here.
A Senate should be secure leadership itself, leading the people, and even the executive. Not protecting against one, and necessarily stifling the other. I was taught in Presbytarian services, society rises together, like an equilibrium, like water; that there is not no thing that one person can understand that everyone can't. This elitism of Madison, is not the difference of America.
"In framing a system…. for the ages, we must not lose sight of what changes the ages may produce." "An increase in population will… raise the proportion of those who will labor under the hardships of life, and sigh for a more equal distribution of its blessings"
Here History does bear out the prophecy. "These in time may outnumber those who placed above the feelings of indigence. According to the equal laws of suffrage, the power will slide into the hands of the former." "How do we protect the interests of the minority?" Here meaning the wealthier.
He refers to the consistent attempt at Agrarian reform by the Judiciary of the Roman Republic, representing the lower class, as moral, and therefore a concern of the judiciary. The Republic's judiciary consistenly failed to achieve Agrarian Reform, but Madison worries about how to stop it. Agrarian Reform means redistributing the land so the poor own more, and the current large land owners own less. Madison, in this speech, actively worries about this, and thus demonstrates a traditional, and senatorial concern, in that the senate, composed of the upper class, was consistently against Agrarian Reform.
Thus, while History would be concerned about a more three dimensional judiciary, Madison is concerned with stifling a judiciary or morality and explicitly wonders how to do it. While we might think morality means equality, and the minority to protect is the poor; Madison thinks morality is the protection of property, and the minority to protect is the rich. Certainly morality is equality, and the argument against equality, not that it is immoral, but that it does not work, and has bad consquences. The notion that morality is bad, or untenable, or leads to a worse evil, is essentially the spirit that holds back sophistication and working out problems. America must ask itself, is morality bad? Is morality the point? Does morality feel good? Thus, as in The Republic, The Senate is of the upper class, so Madison wants a strong respected Senate, with a long term, and thus more capable of stifling liberal or Moral movements. Whereas, a counterview would be to develope the third branch to a degree where morality and the people may be enabled. Madison moves to make America more conservative, advocating for longer Senate terms. So he desires a nine year term (one wonders if he is arguing for a high number to accept a lower one that is still high) but with a limitation upon reelections, possibly by making the age required to be a senator high. Liberty, to Madison, is the freedom to own property. A free society is not one with a lesser amount of unpleasantness; but one that allows the will more at the expense of others.
Mr. Sherman argued frequency of election every 4 or 6 years be better, because elections require better behavior, and in Connecticut there have been frequent elections for 130 years, and great stability as well, thus merging behavior, and landed goals.
Mr. Read noted the Senate would eat away at State Identity and this was a good thing, and the Senate must consider the interests of the citizens as a whole.
Hamilton, while admitting he was a monarchist, did preach that a respected and stable senate be the key to a long term republican government, Republican defined as uniting diverse areas. "IF we did not give (Republican Government) due stability and wisdom, it would be disgraced….and lost to mankind forever." I always thought liberty meant little things, such as lack of censorship, walking safetley down the street, being able to carve out a niche of personal life whereby one could develope and manifest oneself, where the people may behave wisely, where government or others are imposing—but Madison and Hamilton, resolutely mean liberty as protecting the property of the wealthier. Liberty is not a ultilitarian principle of the greatest good for all and such ease; but a free will possibly at the expense of many; which defines the pyramid structure of society, where individuals, faces, are allowed to be in charge. "…inequality would exist as long as liberty existed…(such is an unavoidable result of liberty)"
And it is true, in the errant hand of power, when in the latter days of the Republic, already getting to big to manage himself, Agrarian Reform began, civil war too swiftly followed. As conservatism failed the reigns of authority over so great an area as the republic grew to dominate, and as so this splitting at the seams allowed the weakness that allowed agrarian reform, so the Republic fell into lesser ideals, and grittier worse realities, of civil wars, and then Empire by despots.
But Mr. Hamilton reminded, that the lower house would represent the people, as the Senate the upper class; thus offering more chance at the debate; yet as I said, even this idea, that congress is for the poorer and the senate representing the richer; doesn't clearly manifest, in today's world of party division; the same way state or regional differences haven't been clearly identified in this world of party division. Mr. Hamilton also wisely cited the stability in connecticut coming from a simplicity and sundry of government, due to that its government did not have to deal with foreign affairs. Thus its stability did not come from frequent elections and the wise behavior reelection requires. Connecticut did not have to worry about collecting taxes; that simplicity caused stability. He questioned the ability of Connecticut's Government to now collect taxes, citing the suspension of parts of government, to give way to the people.
Then the debate: Should the states be equal in the Senate; when some states are larger than others? Generally the larger states said no, and the smaller states yes, though Rufus King of Massachussetts argued for inequality. This was a vociferous five day debate.
I never understood the large state, small state debate, as such, because the small states really are north east of Delaware and Maryland. It may more naturally be a regional north south thing. It does remind me though, as a Jersey resident, how New York and Pennsylvania are different, in an off-one-another sort of way. And N.J. and Connecticut, are different in an off-one-another sort of way. As are Connecticut and Massachussets, and Vermont and New Hampshire, and Maine, as well; and these are good differences. As a state resident, I know I can go to a nearby state, and have a different time, perceive, experience cultural differences, and that is good, wonderful fun. Maybe I have to be an American to appreciate the nuance-change.
Likewise Florida is different than Georgia, and Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi different; and all three different from the Carolina's which changes culturally or in mood as one moves laterally; as are there stark changes in ways in different regions of New York and Pennsylvania. I'd like to say small states make the change tidier and more compact, but I can't. I'd like to say smaller states more hands on care about their state then larger states, but I don't think I can either. Neither N.J. nor Pa protects their environment from overpopulation by constitutionally following through on making local decisions in peaceful assembly. Likewise the New England states that are more considerate in this discrimination with local quorums of 236. For when local officials make these decisions, they are not strong enough to stand up to economic forces, and such is the metaphysical design-way of the sacrifice of America, the way Indian culture and Indians were sacrificed; the nuanced care of the land and production we see in Europe, passed over for a homegenity stemming as much from a critical lack of tribal history, as much as an over-empcompassing federational government.
And, as said, in today's world, the projection of state differences onto the debates in washington, doesn't seem to really exist. Party differences that cross states do. Yes the western states have a greater rejection of the Union, being added to it late; yes the southern states may be more conservative than the northern states; but that hasn't been projected on issues per se; or developed state rivalry. So the concerns about state subversion of the whole, are so not seen today, been so effectively dealt with by constitutional design; that this concern may only awaken cognition of what state independence has to offer.
senate reps state, congress reps people; but too much voice for too few never an issue; western low pop states with conservative 2 votes, not identified as cause for conservative success; president steers political party success.
How much each state gets represented in the senate is a big issue, but it is a controlled issue, like a controlled conflict, where the extrapolations of the debate easily seen.
Each state having two representatives, small or large, makes sense for the following reason: when someone chooses a state to live in, and each state has their own culture, they are like choosing a state of mind to live in. Insofar as there are 50 or 13 states of mind, each, theoretically with an own unique perspective, you want each perspective to have their own equal voice. No state of mind is worth more than another state of mind. Such is the nature of a state, and why a fiefdom, just as special as an empire, if not more, for the wisdom within a smaller space.
And even as the debate, leading up to the "Great Compromise" of the lower house, proportional representation, and the Senate, two per state, is billed as the big debate; that is just cover for a controlled conflict, where the stakes really aren't so big, or at least as big as issues previous, and the paths of alternative choices, more easily seen.
What is the worst that can happen were the Senate proportionally represented? The small states are only in the North. Thus as if regional differences were assertive, N.J. would tend to then naturally ally with the interests of Pennsylvania; Connecticut and Massachussetts with New York, Maryland and Delaware with Virginia. The smaller states would vote in a block with their nearby larger states, or so this theory goes. Thus repartioning, recently considered, and oddly so, given the natural rational to each state opportunizing different states of mind; would get on the table, naturally come up, so the previous small states might actually eventually join, or be politically subservient to, the larger states nearby.
So while it is easy to see the debate as mute; the risk of proportional representation could lead as afore mentioned, and the two senators for each state, preserve autonomy and respect autonomy. In that sense there really is no choice. Though it could have led, to a shifting of power, and changing the playing field, in the sense that once change starts, change may continue, so there is the chance that such political absorbtion lead to powers that fragment and then disintegrate the union; then for that very reason history would not allow it.
Yet, at the same time, for that very reason, this is not a real debate, and therefore, an opportunity to blow friction, without causing tension, thus deflecting more serious and insupointed issues, while allowing for a tension that is comfortable, like the tension at a good party.
Proportional representation, may be seen as a power grab, at further expense of unique hanging independence, but the faith in the unique state of mind of each state, boung to prevail; and as a power grab, so exposing the larger states argument as politically seeking power, instead of Union. Union, which, the prime point, has led the states to such peace among themselves, that we may break up, and lead the world into a demonstration of peace as so natural, as to effectively deter war, and usher in the best millenium, naive as that may seem.
Giving northern states an equal footing, a necessary esthete, ideally complimenting the political whole. And yet, who can miss the pathology of politics in the schematics of the whole situation? This is working out something, without real and necessary or vital concern for the metaphyic of earth. And addiction, or puzzle being put together; taking the mind away from serious consideration; modeling TV and the news media now, as history and then contemporary media, drifts the mind from serious contemplation, as common sense and working together long drifted from a pathology of political science inimical to spirituality so far; as mathematical equations be some removed from from spiritual earnest concerns.
I'd also like to add, importantly, that in classical times, when Senates were everywhere overseeing a suprastructual historical binding to tribes, IT WAS THE SENATE. Of the three branches, so folly propogandized-promoted as American invention; The Senate, the deliberative body that creates the executive, chooses the executive: And the Judiciary, that which the people fight for, and has yet to be retained in America, as it was in classical times, as a form for the people to tailor the power of the upper class senate. The Senate being the deliberative body from which legislation springs.
The Senate, once the idea of Republican Government is accepted, allows the executive to exist and guide and steer, (regretably with but one executive, wherein classical times several would serve together for a shorter length of time, thus insuring greater dynamism, and thus relation with the lower class, anthropologically more dynamic and negotiable. It does not start with the executive or King allowing a Senate. The King the notion of the executive, has been so toppled, by the will to Senate, that the Senate then reallows with restrictions, the seen as necessary governing head of government.
Republican government starts with the Senate. It does not start with justice, though justice be all, and while justice then theoretically stems and flows from the people, the world is metaphysically not allowed such origin, and such justice must be warped and twisted from the origin of Senate, whose main purpose is contrary to Kingdom, ironically as Kingdom of contrary to justice, as justice must flow from the bottom up, as the upper class may not even see justice, being above the pangs of injustice.
And yet this beginning of the Senate is Metaphysical, a pathological structure of politics, politics defined almost as paintings rather than humans. A form, of class "war", whereby this is where we find ourselves, this is where we deal from, at this film, back then, and today: hard to overcome, but the hand dealt, to play through.
Obviously people working together in small communities, don't need government, but rationality in peaceful assemblies; But that is specifically denied to us; as politics fits into a world designed to obscure truth, deny us and common sense, from a design to unhealthy living.
But in classical times, an important substructure underneath government existed, of tribes, and what that afforded, we don't necessarily know. In that there was human sacrifice back then, intolerable to certain minds, but still there. And at the bar, the other night, I noticed we do divide up into tribes quite easily; you can see who is like who, who is like bond; so tribal bonds are very much geneological things. The tribes come together around certain types, and there is DNA apparently that makes these divisions quite natural, inherent, even unavoidable, per noticed.
These are my thoughts on State Representation in the Senate, and as we look at the debate, and try to filter the metaphysic out of the pathological, maybe we can see the real issues that lie here, rather than what may be projected per manipulative design. I do not intend to sound proclived to criticism; just to the intent of examining these speeches therein.
But as the debate lacks tribes, and no struture of society inclusive of DNA circumstance, that can exist under government, so a judiciary focused on the people, which is only criminal and petty; rather than a traditional harmony of centuries, where souls in heaven look after their own.
So we see that there can be human sacrifice, as they will sacrifice their own, because each part of the set of DNA, must worry in an unfair universe; So as the corruption of Jesus may take out the practice of human sacrifice, so the ensuring elimination of tribes, so it is not more in our consciousness than states rights, or working together; thus corruptions work removed from heavenly caretakers' who by the same sword, may need to wonder what a sacrifice of the kingdom of god gets, to better ends on earth.
As we bond at a DNA-tribal level, as we are necessarily parts that must comprise a whole to be ourselves and effecive, then we gaze at the super ego of government upon us and wonder what to do, without disturbing government; the very intent of christianity's attempt at salvation; yet not through christian terminology, but the social bonds of unavoidable DNA, if noticed.
This tribal categorical imperitive would handle criminal matters of the people; yet look at the universe; is there hope? Here I am, projecting, and projected through, almost in a vacuum, violated through construction, positing an excited state, that defines and essentializes the lack of common sense of today. As my mind must know that lies mean and equal their violation; that the kingdom of heaven drifts into the mechanics that too excitedly blow their lies; that can't speak calmly from the body, without soon tuning into the body; so I seek to know what drifts into my mind and projects the world. Even as this christian consciousness seeks to controll itself; so a tribal society, even underneath the roof of government, would lead to a rational discussion, the current non tribal society is incapable of, by ignoring the seriousness of DNA bonds; Christianity is unable to win, as it ignores what can not be ignored. Christianity is also oblivious to the universe, which would kill us, requisiting the kingdom of god; giving us a situation, where christianity shines a hazy or muggy light, that shows illumination, without showing enough, or ultimately providing the concrete way, or tools to salvation, even while showing what tools are necessary, even distracting or glossing them. I try to become more aware of heaven's fusion with my mind, while tribal connections may create a reality, more workable.
These mechanisms of my heart, I yearn, like a mechanic, addicted to taking apart an engine, exist in a Christian, non tribal world; of a metaphysic where the world is created to lie, whereby in tribal times, these mechanics may be more discernable and simpler.
Aristotle's view of government as the opportunity to manifest ethics, is a simple one. Government is a central organization to create ethics in a society that may be unethical. It's that simple. We may school, police, fixing roads, whatever government does, as at some level, compelled however so, by ethical concerns. Education, Policing, Fixing Roads, may be organized by citizens informally, and should be, government need not be necessary in an ethical society. But as the ship of society tips this way and that, so government rises to stabilize that ship.
And yet we must understand the national government of America, wasn't intended to be the manifestation of ethical behavior in society because it had the far more specific purpose of eliminating conflict between and within the states, for long term peacetime stability; as a created entity of great power, subsuming the power of many smaller states, and decreasing the state's power dramatically. The reduction of the chance for war, is an ethical concern; but that being done; the national government doesn't fill the vacuum of ethics, but uses its great power to mitigate catastrophes. State governments, being closer to the people, and the land, are the more natural manifestion and filling of ethical void.
And yet, the trinity of universe, afterlife and material world, an awareness thereof, can exist between the individual and the afterlife, and conceivably the universe. The illusion of society need not be wired for this account. Another individual may work obviously with another individual of human concerns.
The government of heaven is an interesting speculation. Must there be unify concerns all the souls have the same opinion of? Are there more powerful older souls; are there different ranks and status? Is the organization of care, with shifting and rotating occupations and ways, rotated according to a system? Dealing with the Universe, as far as possible, is probably done as a group of necessity. Does the material world convene any primacy compelling the Universe to it? And moreso, is the afterlife unpleasant or diminished enough, to imbue the great maturity the human has and thus the identity of the soul's self-conception, and what occupies the soul at a particular moment in time, definitions of consciousness, what enjoys its gaze upon nature, maybe more evident to what comes from without earth, than those who live it.
can come up from justice, but pt is peace, even abscence of war subsumed by senate
Large state v. Small state, debateed June 28th to July Second, the longest chapter in the catalogue combining direct quotes of speeches with a shifting to the third person in recounts by the minutes taker.
Madison argued, as representatives are chosen by the people, so there should be proportionate representation; that as more populous states have more citizens, they have greater interests in good.
However, I argue, if the point is to establish a powerful senate, capable of supporting the maintaining of property, the is more power and legitimacy to a Senate respecting the culture and wisdom of each state, rather than glossing over those cultural differences with senatorial proportional representation.
Madison also alludes that the check on state powers and legislatures, will incorporate the national body as a fourth estate of the state. This has not happened as states do not energetically propose much legislation the National Government must review; though it does happen today, notably in immigration laws, and drug enforcement laws and practices. " The negative proposed on the state laws, will make it (National Government) an essential branch of sta by thislatures" What exactly did Madison mean by this?
James also mentioned small states had no reason to fear the larger ones. That may be true. But on the other hand, the large states could eventually flow to annex the small states nearby; mitigating cultural nuance, difference and essence. And there were religious differences. Massachussetts was considered a large state, by virtue of population. States within confederacies, and nations as well,: "Rivalships were more frequent than colations." But then he says something devious to this scholar, "Rome and Carthage tore on another to pieces rather than uniting their forces to devour the weaker nations of earrh." First of all, through good deals of the Punic Wars, Spain and latter even the Fauls, were divided evenly among the two sides, so there was a common imperial spirit among them. However, Carthage was famously the aggressor, and never more completely than during the third Punic War by Hannibal. The two nations may be said to have had a prophesized conflict; their dominance, at sea, weighed upon jealous nation's pride; Peace was desired, but to expect the two to ally, against all, doesn't recognize the hand of history at all; whereby each classical society have a federal system and checks and balances extending into the people; thus with a similar federal government to comply to, being the point, to evidence what America practiced, (most notably without an executive of committee replaced each year); that to think such metaphysical polity would culminate in two powers of antiquity uniting contradicts the spirit of federalism grounded in autonomy.
"A coalition between (Austria and France, or England and France) those powers, would have been fatal to us.", Demonstrating that coalitions would not propel a political system more complex than kingdoms, grounded in more political actors, through Senates, as opposed to kings.
There was nothing to fear, the small states from large, because the National Government would strip the states of the ability of the states to contend with each other; And whereas the contentions of Sparta and Athens, thrust the smaller states into demise; the karma of coalition would insure the safety of small states. The treaty between the states, into America, was so strong a bond compared to anything in History, that Madison guarenteed the oposite of what happened in history, warfare, would ensue.
Were there 13 small nations, instead of one, Madison went on, the smaller states would have much more to fear.
Dr. Johnson, phrased and wondered the issue as to whether, truly, the people of the land were more one political culture, or actually many different polities. He insisted that because states are a certain way, and their government formed or conformed differently to, those governments are tantamount; to deserving their own self-defense, that would secure their uniqueness. "Besides the Aristocratic and other interests, which ought to have the means to defend themselves, the states have their interest as such and are equally entitled to their like means." Thus suggesting that if the upper class manifested in their Senate, and with a powerful judiciary to compel, the states would maintain, perhaps what they called in Rome, Equestrian interests; interests of capable people, one step below the nobility, and perhaps more talented. Even more, the states could have, it is implied, conveyed a greater influence to more normal economic people, than the Senate, if states do care more than national governments, and are not weakened by the lesser number they are beholden too, not more easily corrupted by dint of their smaller ship; then their interest is worthy to a great nation; for that is always what the people said in the Roman Republic: that polity is better with their contribution. All society benefits from their intelligence. But barring that, Dr. Johnson said, the states be represented in The Senate, the People in Congress. Currently, Perry the Governnor of Texas, proposed the idea of state legislature effecting their senator; insofar as the people recognize they benefit from their state controlling their national senator, more than they electing one who can stray from state influence.
Mr. Madison responded noting the respectability to state differences, but that the differences were overstated. James did admit, that the National Government would have far more power over the States, than England ever did over the colonies, particularily in taxing so freely. Yet giving states the right to self-defense, would quickly cause exactly the dangers of internal rebellion, as a national government could secure the end of insurrection, and at lower cost effectively better than States, and that further more, conflict would ripen with standing state armies. Even though a many states at the time, had voted against peacetime armies, but not all; thus the chance to political science to examine the success of the states without armies, versus the success of states with armines, by history, himself. "The means to self-defense, has always been the instruments of tyranny at Home." The insulation of England, made her great; as she depended on an army less.
MR. Hamilton, the icy aristocrat, pointed out the different voting laws in each state; then noted, the small states don't care about Equality but Power. To be more influential per person. "The proper object (minutes not speech,) of republican Government was domestic tranquilly and Happiness" Do not worry about being ashamed by the autonomy of foreign powers." The longer we don't get together, the less inclined to do so we will be, he finished.
Now I have thought long and hard about the small state v. large state debate, concluding a difference of states, and the respect of them, greater than propotionalizing senatorial representation so large states have more senators; yet in general with the debate between state hegemony v. National government, and in particular regarding the means of national representatives being decided by the states or as officials within national government; I have wondered what is the big deal? What would the states do if state legislators chose their national representaives, rather than district and state voters? How would this manifest itself and play out? Because in today's polity, we see very little individual state interest or issues being promoted, nor alliances between certain kinds of states manifested, or any obvious flow of a state's power to particular interest or issue. The issues do not involved particular states, the decisions are made by individual officials, not sentiment recorded by state.
But if you think about, classically, culturally, the point of a national government was to weaken states to insure a peacetime prosperity, so necessary coming out of medieval times. That was the number one reason. Therefore you didn't want states making pacts and treaties with each other or engaging in the diplomatic aspect of government, which so can so much define, identify and assert a state. However the second reason was to provide a common defense against european powers, and common offense against the indians. And this is where and only where, I can see where the issues of state's rights coagulates.
If state legislatures chose their representatives, they would tell their representative how to vote on the subject of wars. International peace treaties and calls to war, would have to be ratified by each state, rather than each senator; and this would very much allowed assertions of peace, as opposed to war prevail. It would have made our warlike nature much harder. For each state legistature to decide on Iraq or Aphganistan, or achieve a referendum on the issue from votes, would make those wars harder to achieve than the current system, and begin to allow a bottom-up assertion of power and will, from a polity posited upon smaller states, telling the national government above it what they think; rather than officials of the national government making decisions regarding war and peace, with only a check by federal employees, as opposed to a much stronger and defining one by each state. Regarding health care, each state should submit what they think, with the national government and their people, for comment and affirmation by majority.
The most evil allowed by America was the pushing of the Indians. The way I figure it, if the states manifested the power, through objecting to, or ratifying war; eastern states would have questioned westward expansion at the expense of the Indians. The indians would have made much needed friends with us on the land. In some ways, the illegal invasion of illegal alians, taking our jobs, alianating us, not knowing what they are doing, leaving their home country, is just karma upon our national structure. We should welcome them back with some structure, they shouldn't take our jobs and be exploited or be where they don't want. We should know the kingdom of god, and how fake history is. That is how we make the economy, if we are unable to take down history and just say it. In the old days, there seemed places that could view the fortress of history. Today, the deal seems to be, every inch is within the fortress of history. Who would want their land described by media as anything but The kingdom of God, and absented earth. This media is enacted by God or the kingdom of heaven, and when reporters think they are special, for in these circumstances, no one is special, and when reporters construe themselves as special, as like Jesus anyway, you have a situation where their own ego keeps them from seeing the truth.