I think Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsorsPrevious and present legislative stalemates in Congress regarding the US debt limit and extension of revenues through taxation do not mean the US government is broken, it means the US government is working exactly as designed, exactly as socially engineered. The social engineers’ plan was made explicit in the Constitution of the United States of America, and, unfortunately, the design was always flawed – it is the US constitution that is broken.
— a quote of the day
The most calamitous constitutional design flaw led to the US Civil War (in combination with other factors). The flaw was a failure of imagination to address a real problem (slavery) and – to use a common 2011 metaphor – to kick the can down the road by the short-term expedient of enshrining slavery in the constitution without explicitly mentioning its existence. The 3/5 rule in Article I Section 2 of the constitution increased the voting representation of slave-holding states by taking into account the number of slaves in a state. Those of European descent were “free persons”, there were Indians not taxed, leaving slaves to be termed “all other persons” (amended after the civil war).
Long before the civil war, this basis for representation caused disputes between free persons in Virginia. Because the Virginia constitution also had a 3/5ths rule, those in the mountainous areas of Virginia (where there were few plantations and slaves) felt they were under-represented in the Virginia legislature compared to slave-dense parts of the state. The argument over the existence of slaves was not so much about the morality of slavery, but about the morality of giving extra representation to plantation owners. After the civil war, the mountainous areas separated from the rest of Virginia to create the state of West Virginia. John Brown’s raid on the Federal Armoury in Harper’s Ferry was in a town that became part of West Virginia, and perhaps he chose that particular armoury because he felt the local populace would be more receptive.
Many of the free persons who voted for and against the original US constitution were probably in agreement with sentiments expressed in the 1776 US Declaration of Independence (“we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor”), and they were proud of what they had managed to achieve in the fight for independence. They were proud of their new country, and – as free persons – they might have believed in the constitution’s grandiose claim in the preamble that “We, the People” (that is, free persons who could vote on the constitution) wanted to:
… to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity …There again, they might have ignored the high ideals as being preambulatory froth.
John Jay was probably in tune with the majority of free persons in the USA who could vote when he pointed out just how similar, and very blessed, were these free persons (Federalist 2):
With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people – a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.If we take this smug view (not uncommon at the time) and combine it with the fear of external threats from, say, the British then we can see why many regarded the populace of the USA as being one unified people (“We the people”). With groups such the tea-party fellow-travellers exercising disproportionate influence, perhaps we could have “We the interest groups”.
Many social engineers believed that, though there might be disagreements – and strange things might occur – essentially people were unified. Others were not so sanguine, and are reflected in contemporary worries by strident groups and individuals about government in Washington and the remoteness of individuals from control over that government:
We are not like the people of England, one people compactly settled on a small island, with a great city filled with frugal merchants, serving as a common centre of liberty and union. We are dispersed, and it is impracticable for any but the few to assemble in one place. The few must be watched, checked, and often resisted. Tyranny has ever shown a predilection to be in close amity with them, or the one man. Drive it from kings and it flies to senators, to decemviri, to dictators, to tribunes, to popular leaders, to military chiefs, etc. [My emphasis.] — The Federal Farmer, Antifederalist No. 56 WILL THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BE GENUINELY REPRESENTATIVE? (PART 2), 3 Jan 1788. (Originally a “letter” – Federal Farmer VIII.)In the same letter, the pseudonymous author notes what he foresaw as an important design flaw. When elected representatives had smaller constituencies and the elected were accessible (a numerous representation):
In a numerous representation the abuse of power is a common injury, and has no temptation;However, as “We are dispersed, and it is impracticable for any but the few to assemble in one place”:
among the few, the abuse of power may often operate to the private emolument of those who abuse it.Abuse was not acting in the interests of those represented, but acting in the financial interests of those who were supposed to represent the people. The power of financial interests over the interests of human people was made more legitimate by the US Supreme Court decision in 1886 that corporations were people as far equal protection under the laws was concerned. Equal protection under the laws remedied other original flaws, and was a recent innovation due to the results of the US civil war (14th Amendment, 1868).
Or, as Mitt Romney said lately, “Corporations are people, my friend” – he then tried to recover and make his assertion more appealing by saying “Everything corporations earn ultimately goes to people” though he did not say which people ...
Or, as it says above, “I think Congressmen should wear uniforms like NASCAR drivers so we could identify their corporate sponsors”.
No comments:
Post a Comment