Constitution Thursday Dave Bowman

I have long held that he Anti-Federalist of 1788 is the ideological grandfather of today’s libertarian*. Many of the same issues of today find a distant echo in the complaints of the Anti-Federalists.

In those distant echo’s of the past are many ideas and knowledge points which both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist not only knew, but understood. Many of the things that would have stood out to the readers and listeners of 1788 were familiar to them, but to our modern ears and eyes, either make no sense or we simply do not even recognize them as meaningful.

Let’s start with the names.

The Federalists papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, signed their papers with the nom de plume “Publius.” There were, of course, multiple reasons for this. The the use of a fictitious name removed the built in prejudice from the reader, either for or against the actual author. The name “Publius” was partially chosen to represent the idea, specifically “of the people,” reflecting the Federalist position that “We the People” had created and would operate the Constitution were it ratified. The name would have been seen as a bold claim that the people themselves were sharing this opinion of things. But there is actually a deeper meaning to the name.

For the same reasons, the Anti-Federalists adopted a variety of names and identities: Cato, John DeWitt, the Pennsylvania Minority, the Federal Farmer, and of course, our focus, Brutus. Unlike the Federalist Papers, some of the authors we now know, but many of them at which we are still, more than two centuries later, simply guessing.

Today we read these many names and arguments and we have lost the understanding that readers of both sides would have had in 1788. To gain back some of that understanding, we have to travel back in time to the Rome and the foundation of the Republic. It is here that we find two men, Publius Valerius Policola and Lucius Junius Brutus. More than two thousand years later these two men would inspire the writers on both sides of the ratification debate to proclaim their positions and beliefs.

In 1788, both sides and their audiences knew this history and what was being said…

*When I use the term “libertarian,” I absolutely 100% do not refer to the Libertarian Party. While the party, as such, has some positions in which I am full agreement, the basic philosophy of the party is not compatible with my own beliefs. So to be clear, I will often use the term “libertarian,” but in no way, shape or form, will I be referring to the LP, which does not have sole possession of the term.

As I expected, the ruling against Pennsylvania’s Governor a few weeks ago   has been stayed by the Third Circuit Court.  The Court made no comment as to a specific reason for the stay, but it  was in keeping with other rulings around the Country. And, while the  case will be heard by a panel (or possible  en banc) at  the Third, it is very unlikely that the Governors orders will be again  ruled unconstitutional. There is a reason why that is so, and it’s  rooted in a long term view of things from 1905.

Meanwhile,  in New York, Governor Cuomo has essentially declared war on “religious  groups,” specifically Jews, because he has decided that our worship  activities at this time (The High Holy Days) are – in his opinion –  “super spreader events” for COVID-19.

The  problem is, of course, that we are no longer in the “Lochner Era.”  Which means that not only is Judge Strickland’s ruling unlikely to be  upheld, but Governors everywhere will be emboldened to do such redlining  for whatever reasons they see fit.

In  the mid 1990’s Kahn Noonien Singh, a genetically superior and  engineered  superman conquered nearly a quarter of the Earth, putting it  under his tyrannical thumb. He and others like him were the result of  generations of genetic engineering and selective breeding that failed to  consider the element of human nature.

You might think, “Dave, that’s science fiction, nothing like that could ever really happen, at least not here.”

And  while it’s easy to imagine some regimes in the 20th Century choosing to  eliminate “undesirables from their midst,” it isn’t always comfortable  to find out that until 1974, some States had laws on their books allowing for the same thing to happen.

Oh… and the United States Supreme Court had upheld those laws as Constitutional…

Throughout his Presidency, Hayes battles with Congress became legendary. He believed that an attempt by the Bourbon Democrats to add “riders” to funding bills for the Army, the executive and Judiciary that further eroded voting rights for Black Americans was “revolutionary,” a flat out attempt to undermine the Constitution and the rob the Republican Party of it’s most treasured legacy – ending slavery.

Among the Congressmen who stood by him were two of particular note. Though he had long before fallen out with the President, now-Senator Roscoe Conklin (R-NY) was bombastic about what the Bourbon Democrats were attempting to do.

In the House of Representatives, a thoughtful measured and decorated Union General from Illinois galvanized opposition to the Democrat’s efforts. In a speech which garnered national attention, James A. Garfield (R-IL) said:

“… if the President, in the discharge of his duty, shall exercise his plain constitutional right to refuse his consent to this proposed legislation, the Congress will so use its voluntary powers as to destroy the government. This is the proposition… we confront; and we denounce it as revolution.”

His stand with the President brought him to the attention of Republicans, who in 1880, on the 36th ballot nominated him for President.

In another very close election, Garfield would take the popular vote by a mere 0.11%, although things were a bit more lopsided (214-155) in the Electoral College.

Garfield wanted to continue the stalled reformation of the Civil Service, and eliminate the “Spoils System” which had corrupted the government’s Civil Service system. Senator Conklin nearly came unglued over Garfield’s refusal to continue to the system and there as much speculation that his handpicked Vice-President, Chester A. Arthur, would be more agreeable to the old ways.

The problem was, Arthur wasn’t the President, Garfield was.

Until a disgruntled Republican Office seeker decided to change things…

The SHOW NOTES

The SHOW NOTES