At any rate, after reading through the Bill of Rights, Sergei asked me for a link to an article about the founders and founding of the United States.  He seemed genuinely surprised/intrigued by the purpose of the first ten amendments – that of limiting governmental power.  Even this U.S. president has a good understanding of that,

.. generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states canâ€t do to you, it says what the federal government canâ€t do to you, but it doesnâ€t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf. And that hasn’t shifted.

Although he finds it a great “tragedy,”

One of the I think tragedies of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributed change and in some ways we still suffer from that.

Talking to Sergei, I realized how odd this must be for much of the world.  The Russian constitution is full of grandiose promises of positive rights, much like those proposed by FDR. At first glance, both of these sets of “rights” might seem appealing. In practice, the Russian state has never been bound in the slightest by the rights it has “granted” to its peoples.

That’s the difference, in the United States rights are inherent in the people, and it is the government that is granted limited authority – not the people a delineated set of rights.

I still don’t have a good article for my friend Sergei.  Suggestions welcome.

Below, please find an excerpt from Madison’s address to the Congress introducing legislation to incorporate a “bill of rights” to the newly ratified Constitution.  Emphasis WWTFT.

It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights, by many respectable gentlemen out of doors, and I find opposition on the same principles likely to be made by gentlemen on this floor, that they are unnecessary articles of a Republican Government, upon the presumption that the people have those rights in their own hands, and that is the proper place for them to rest. It would be a sufficient answer to say, that this objection lies against such provisions under the State Governments, as well as under the General Government; and there are, I believe, but few gentlemen who are inclined to push their theory so far as to say that a declaration of rights in those cases is either ineffectual or improper. It has been said, that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the Constitution are retained; that the Constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation; but they are not conclusive to the extent which has been supposed. It is true, the powers of the General Government are circumscribed, they are directed to particular objects; but even if Government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse to a certain extent, in the same manner as the powers of the State Governments under their constitutions may to an indefinite extent; because in the Constitution of the United States, there is a clause granting to Congress the power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution all the powers vested in the Government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof; this enables them to fulfil every purpose for which the Government was established. Now, may not laws be considered necessary and proper by Congress, (for it is for them to judge of the necessity and propriety to accomplish those special purposes which they may have in contemplation,) which laws in themselves are neither necessary nor proper; as well as improper laws could be enacted by the State Legislatures, for fulfilling the more extended objects of those Governments? I will state an instance, which I think in point, and proves that this might be the case. The General Government has a right to pass all laws which shall be necessary to collect its revenue; the means for enforcing the collection are within the direction of the Legislature: may not general warrants be considered necessary for this purpose, as well as for some purposes which it was supposed at the framing of their constitutions the State Governments had in view? If there was reason for restraining the State Governments from exercising this power, there is like reason for restraining the Federal Government.

It may be said, indeed it has been said, that a bill of rights is not necessary, because the establishment of this Government has not repealed those declarations of rights which are added to the several State constitutions; that those rights of the people which had been established by the most solemn act, could not be annihilated by a subsequent act of that people, who meant and declared at the head of the instrument, that they ordained and established a new system, for the express purpose of securing to themselves and posterity the liberties they had gained by an arduous conflict.

I admit the force of this observation, but I do not look upon it to be conclusive. In the first place, it is too uncertain ground to leave this provision upon, if a provision is at all necessary to secure rights so important as many of those I have mentioned are conceived to be, by the public in general, as well as those in particular who opposed the adoption of this Constitution. Besides, some States have no bills of rights, there are others provided with very defective ones, and there are others whose bills of rights are not only defective, but absolutely improper; instead of securing some in the full extent which republican principles would require, they limit them too much to agree with the common ideas of liberty.

It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

It has been said that it is unnecessary to load the Constitution with this provision, because it was not found effectual in the constitution of the particular States. It is true, there are a few particular States in which some of the most valuable articles have not, at one time or other, been violated; but it does not follow but they may have, to a certain degree, a salutary effect against the abuse of power. If they are incorporated into the Constitution, independent tribunals of justice will consider themselves in a peculiar manner the guardians of those rights; they will be an impenetrable bulwark against every assumption of power in the Legislative or Executive; they will be naturally led to resist every encroachment upon rights expressly stipulated for in the Constitution by the declaration of rights. Besides this security, there is a great probability that such a declaration in the federal system would be enforced; because the State Legislatures will jealously and closely watch the operations of this Government, and be able to resist with more effect every assumption of power, than any other power on earth can do; and the greatest opponents to a Federal Government admit the State Legislatures to be sure guardians of the peopleâ€s liberty. I conclude, from this view of the subject, that it will be proper in itself, and highly politic, for the tranquillity of the public mind, and the stability of the Government, that we should offer something, in the form I have proposed, to be incorporated in the system of Government, as a declaration of the rights of the people.

Congressional hearings on IRS harassment of selected individuals, groups and business owners revealed what happens when politics trumps the rule of law.  Those who expressed opinions critical of the Obama administration found themselves at the mercy of legions of unelected bureaucrats from an alphabet soup of agencies apparently working in concert with the IRS.

Now the already suspect IRS is preparing to take charge of health care. It is not a confidence inspiring thought especially since Lois Lerner, the IRS Director complicit in the targeting of conservative groups, will be in charge of the enforcement division the Affordable Health Care Act.

According to a Treasury Department audit, the expansion of IRS power under ACA is daunting.

“The Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) represents the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years and presents a major challenge to the Internal Revenue Service.”

Based on IRS additional fund requests House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) calculated that the IRS would hire an additional 16,500 agents.

When ACA goes into effect in 2014 all Americans who file tax returns will have to fill out an additional form disclosing personal identifying health information. This is to prove to the IRS that the filer has “qualifying” health coverage. “Qualifying” means that what is covered complies with the list approved by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.

“Itâ€s all part of a new Obama Care rule that was issued late on Friday, June 14, just as offices were closing for the weekend break. The new rule requires state, federal and local agencies, as well as health insurers, to swap protected personal health information about anybody seeking affordable health insurance on an exchange that will be enforced by the IRS.”  – emaxhealth.com

To collect this data, the IRS will be assisted by the new Federal Data Services Hub which will officiate over the collection and shared access of information between the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, the Social Security Administration, the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, the several states, the IRS and the janitor (just kidding about the latter). However, if Americans ever awake from their torpor, they may not see any humor in another huge digital warehouse of their personal information.

“He has elected a multitude of new Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.”

And it doesnâ€t end there. An article (A Toxic Combination) in the June 3rd issue of the Weekly Standard reveals that Americans, henceforth, will be required to…

“update the IRS regularly on whatâ€s going on in their lives. Marriages, divorces job changes, moves, pay increases, even changes in number of hours worked– these are all things on which the IRS will expect to be well informed.”

Last August, in testimony before Congress, IRS official Nina Olson explained the changes that ACA will bring to citizens†responsibilities to the IRS. Michigan Republican Rep. Tim Walberg asked Olson:

“Do you believe that most Americans are going to update the IRS or state exchanges when they change jobs, get married, move states, whatever?”

Olsonâ€s reply echoes the arrogance demonstrated by other administration officials appointed by the president.

“I think itâ€s going to be a very great learning curve. If Americans donâ€t keep the IRS up to date on their financial status, they might incur penalties, which the IRS will collect by withholding income tax refunds. I think it will be a surprise to taxpayers if they donâ€t update their information.”

In other words, Americans who fail to comply will receive a financial colonoscopy courtesy of the IRS.

If that doesnâ€t penetrate the somnolent population perhaps the reach and insularity of the ACA Independent Payment Advisory Board will. The board of political appointees is tasked with reducing health care costs. In addition to being able to cut Medicare payments it has…

“the power to regulate all health care in the U.S., including private health care and private health insurance, so long as such action is deemed to “help reduce the growth rate [of national health expenditures] while maintaining or enhancing [Medicare] beneficiary access to quality care.” – Forbes

The ACA also stipulates that there …

“shall be no administrative or judicial review” of the boardâ€s decisions. Its members will be nearly untouchable, too. They will be presidentially nominated and Senate-confirmed, but after that they can only be fired for “neglect of duty or malfeasance in office.” WSJ

Becky Gerritson, president of one of the groups harassed by the IRS, concluded her testimony before the House Ways and Means Committee by observing:

“Many of the agents and agencies of the federal government do not understand that they are servants of the people. They think they are our masters. And they are mistaken.”

But maybe they arenâ€t.

Purportedly, the children in the photo spontaneously wrote letters to Obama in favor of gun control. Maybe so, or maybe the letters were a class project initiated by some well meaning but clueless teacher.

The left is not interested in facts, and children are ignorant of them. Emotion is the currency of the left and children are especially vulnerable to manipulation. It is a fact that states that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that donâ€t. It is a fact that, “With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.” So said John Lott, author with William Landes of a 1999 study that found that mass shootings most often occur in places where guns are banned, such as shopping malls and schools.

Itâ€s not as though outlawing guns, whether a certain kind or all guns, would stop people from killing other people. Chicago with some of the most restrictive gun laws in the nation also has one of the highest violent crime rates in the nation. So much for the argument that gun control keeps guns out of the hands of criminals or loonies.

Gutting the Second Amendment has been on the wish list of the radical left for decades. Now, with the tragedy at Sandy Hook, they have the opportunity and one of their own in the Oval Office.

So letâ€s cut to the chase. The effort to ban guns is only superficially about guns. Decreasing citizenâ€s ability for self-defense increases dependence on the state. An armed citizenry is able to defend themselves against all comers; criminals who seek to rob them or otherwise do them harm, the mentally ill whose reasons are often unfathomable, and last but not least, rapacious  government.

The Bill of Rights was amended to the Constitution because members of the state ratifying conventions wanted assurance that government was prohibited from infringing upon the peopleâ€s liberty.  The Bill of Rights, and most especially the Second Amendment, was intended as a protection against government itself.

No wonder the bigger-the-government-the-better left wants to be rid of it.

This is a question bound to raise the ire of Libertarians, Liberals, and Leftists. There are those who will cite Thomas Jefferson’s biblical editing or his famous “wall of separation” letter to the Danbury Baptists, to suggest that it is not. However, there is much more evidence in support of this proposition, than the contrary. Two that come to mind immediately are Washington’s farewell address,

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

and John Adams’ warning,

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Arguments over religion’s place (or lack thereof) in our government have been going on as long as the United States has been a nation.   On Flag Day, June 14, 1954, President Eisenhower signed a Bill to include the words “under God” to the Pledge of Allegiance.  He said,

In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America’s heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country’s most powerful resource, in peace or in war.

Pretty amazing words from the Commander in Chief and the military hero of WWII.

Little known, however, is one of the main reasons for Eisenhower’s support.  As it turns out, Eisenhower was among the faithful who listened to a powerful sermon by Presbyterian minister George Docherty, in which he argued for this change to the Pledge.

Docherty made a persuasive argument that the battle being waged in the cold war was a spiritual battle against godless communists.*

He had this to say to those who argued against God’s place in in the pledge,

Some might assert this to be a violation to the first Amendment to the Constitution.  It is quite the opposite … If we were to add the phrase “under the Church,” … it would be dangerous.  But one of the glories of this land is that it has opened its gates to all men of every religious faith.

…

What then of the honest atheist?

Philosophically speaking, an atheistic American is a contradiction in terms.  Now don’t misunderstand me … These men, and many I have known, are fine in character, and in their obligations as citizens and good neighbors, quite excellent.  But they really are “spiritual parasites.”  And I mean no term of abuse in this.  I’m simply classifying them.  A parasite is an organism that lives upon the life force of another organism without contributing to the life of the other.  These excellent ethical seculars are living upon the accumulated spiritual capital of a Judeo-Christian civilization, and at the same time, deny the God who revealed the divine principles upon which the ethics of this country grow.

His words resonated with Ike and they resonate today.

*Now to those whose eyebrows raised at the cliche “godless communists,” please read your history to see the results of this political philosophy in stark terms and then compose an honest argument against the nature of evil and its consequences.  Where there is no God, there is no absolute.  Where there is no absolute, morality is arbitrary, and the value of human life becomes relative, and dependent upon who is doing the valuation.

James Madison and The Making of America is not really a biography.  It is exactly what its title suggests, the story of the making of America, or at least its government.  Kevin R. C. Gutzmanâ€s book takes the reader on a chronological journey of Madisonâ€s involvement in that process.  It mirrors some aspects of Labunskiâ€s James Madison and The Struggle For The Bill of Rights, but is broader in scope and less biographical than that excellent book.

In this book, there is very little detail pertaining to Madison himself. In this respect the book is almost dispassionate in its tone.  Where in Labunskiâ€s book, the reader gets a sense of Madisonâ€s reluctance to travel and his struggles with his health as well as his contributions to the Constitution, in Gutzmanâ€s book, when Madison was ill during the Virginia convention, it is only mentioned to explain his absence in the chronology of events. Gutzmanâ€s book doesnâ€t waste time on the human aspects of its subject.

However, Gutzman makes up for this somewhat flat characterization of Madison by delving deeply into his political philosophy and principles.  He takes the reader through an exhaustive account of the Constitutional Convention and Madisonâ€s contributions.  He provides a day-by-day account of the issues, arguments, and their resolution. (None of the other players on this stage survive with a personality either.)

Gutzman relieves the tedium of his account by offering an occasional sardonic remark in his telling of events.  For instance, in recounting the arguments surrounding how representation was to be apportioned under the new government, Gutzman slips in this dry remark,

Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania followed Madison with an appeal to consider the effect of the committeeâ€s proposal upon the entire world.  He lamented that some delegates seemed to think of themselves as representing only their particular states, when really all humanity had a stake in the conventions outcome.  Like Madisonâ€s, Morrisâ€s disinterested principles led him to a conclusion that favored his large stateâ€s interests.

After concluding his coverage of the Constitutional Convention, Gutzman moves on to Madisonâ€s contributions to the Federalist Papers.  This section of the book was the most interesting to this reviewer.  (At the time of this writing, WWTFT has put about 36 of these essays into modern English, and spent the requisite time to understand them enough to do so.)  Gutzman goes through each of the Madison-authored Federalists with varying degrees of detail.  Initially, he talks a little bit about the evident collaboration between Madison and Hamilton, but it would have been interesting had he devoted a bit more to this.  Nonetheless, this section of the book is one that this reviewer will undoubtedly refer to in the course of his own studies of the Federalist.

Gutzman also covers Madisonâ€s participation in the Virginia ratifying convention and his tireless efforts to get the Constitution ratified by a majority of the States.  Following the successful ratification, Gutzman covers some of the ground in Labunskiâ€s book with regard to Madisonâ€s efforts to get the Bill of Rights passed.

The remainder of the book is about Madisonâ€s service in Congress, as Jeffersonâ€s right hand as Secretary of State, his presidency, and finally his long career as a political sage after retirement.  In reading this book, like so many others about the Founders, the reader is struck with the magnitude of their contributions and intellects.  No, these men werenâ€t perfect, but they deserve our admiration and our gratitude. Consider some of Madisonâ€s accomplishments:

• Driving force behind the Constitutional Convention and getting Washington on board
• Attending Physician at the birth of the Constitution (some say father of the Constitution)
• Chronicler of the Convention – Madison provided a treasure trove of meticulous notes on the Convention which were published after his death.
• Collaborator on the Federalist Papers, authoring 26 of them
• Participant in the Virginia ratification convention
• As a member of the House of Representatives, Madison crafted the amendments that would comprise the Bill of Rights and sent them to the states for ratification
• Secretary of State under Jefferson
• President of the United States (two terms)
• Author of numerous essays and treatises – even after retirement from public office

This is, by no means, an exhaustive list, but represents the majority of the themes in James Madison and The Making of America.  Gutzmanâ€s book filled in some gaps in this readerâ€s knowledge and provided a number of pointers to subjects for further investigation.

Stephen Protheroâ€s new book, The American Bible, is a clever arrangement of significant documents from Americaâ€s beginning to fairly contemporary times.  The American Bible is arranged not so much chronologically as thematically.   The themes echo sections or “books” of the Bible.  And it works for the most part, and proved an interesting way to organize the material.

Prothero switches between “books” and collections of books – so there is Genesis, The Law (presumably a reference to the Pentateuch), Chronicles, Psalms, Proverbs, and then The Prophets, Lamentations, The Gospels, Acts and Epistles.  Interestingly enough, the book of Revelation is not represented.

By and large The American Bible is an objective selection of interesting bits of what the author refers to as American Scripture.  Protheroâ€s format is to offer a brief contextual explanation of the piece selected, the document either whole or in part, and then commentary – either contemporaneous or subsequent.  Frequently, the author includes contemporary material along with the “scripture” being discussed.  It seems as though these writings also carry the weight of “American Scripture.”

In spite of objectivity in his choice of selections for his Bible, Protheroâ€s biases do come through in his writing.  They are subtle but unmistakable.  Itâ€s unfortunate.  Each time one of these little jabs pop up in either his introductory remarks, or in his descriptions of the commentary, they cause the reader to pause and question other aspects of the book because of these slips.

Prothero lets his bias show pretty broadly in the Epilogue, in which he asserts that his American Bible is, like the Constitution, a living document.  Here is where his analogy breaks down.  Although he admits that religions let their scriptures do the heavy lifting, and that some have closed canons and others open ones, he fails to recognize that truth is truth and not subject to augmentation.  To be sure the American canon of political thought will continue to expand over time, however, it is not a religion.  In his Epilogue, Prothero attempts to don a cloak of intellectual superiority, casting aspersions on both the right and the left.  But the subtext is that the Left has a problem with implementation rather than philosophy.

But, if Prothero has an ax to grind, so be it.  The American Bible is still worth reading as a broad survey of what Mortimer Adler might have called “The Great American Conversation.”  In The American Bible youâ€ll find the text of landmark SCOTUS decisions like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education.  These are surprisingly accessible and interesting to read as are the subsequent commentaries.  The author adapts the notion of religion as a chain of memories into his selections for The American Bible.  Hence he depicts commentaries and arguments throughout American history as a continuous conversation across the ages.  For instance, the famous shining city on hill borrowed from John Winthrop and used by Reagan, has a long and illustrious historical derivation.  Winthrop developed his sermon “A Model of Christian Charity” from the Sermon on the Mount.  In one of the more perceptive observations in the book, Prothero illustrates how this notion has been used by both the left and the right to justify the concept of a conditional covenant between America and God.  For some Godâ€s blessings are to be earned, while for others they are the reward for Americaâ€s goodness.  Still others, like the reverend Jeremiah Wright think God should punish America, while some on the right suggest that 9/11 was Godâ€s punishment.

Godâ€s judgement notwithstanding, The American Bible is not analogous to scripture.  The themes are not unified, nor are they sanctified as Prothero demonstrates in his choice of commentaries on the Constitution.  To be sure, there are those who revere it, but there are at least as many who despise it and what it stands for – because they find it archaic and limiting.  Others condemn it for being too secular, too racist or too religious.  In the civil war, both the North and the South claimed it as their own.

The American Bible is a fascinating collection of famous American texts bundled with relevant commentary which is sometimes enunciated more than 2 centuries after the fact.  This is evidence that ideas are important both as agents of change and stability.  Arguments over things like  “the rule of law” are as important today as they were in 1776 and people are still fighting over these ideas today.

In reading The American Bible, this reviewer found himself agreeing with some of the commentary and cursing others.  Prothero has definitely succeeded in depicting “How Our Words Unite, Divide and Define a Nation.”

Before getting into the meat of the book review, this reviewer is compelled to remark on the physical presentation of Madison’s Metronome.  Bibliophiles will appreciate the quality binding and paper, along with the beautiful cover art.  The University of Kansas Press is to be congratulated on producing a gorgeous volume.  It is truly a pleasure to read, so much so, in fact that nary a mark or highlight did this reviewer make upon it, instead opting to make use of a separate pad and paper for annotations.

On to the review.

Madison’s Metronome is an extremely honest and thorough assessment of Madison’s political theories as they relate to the construction of the United States federal system.  The book is a “chips fall where they may” look at a remarkable mind.  Author Greg Weiner does an incredible job of avoiding even the smell of a partisan agenda of any kind.  This is truly an academic look at Madison’s views on republican government.  Honest conservatives and progressive liberals alike will find things in the book that make them stop and reassess.  Although Weiner’s book is thorough and deep, it is not dry.  The author manages to explain some pretty complex concepts in a straightforward and accessible manner.  On the other hand, it’s not bedtime reading, either.  It is definitely not a book written for someone unfamiliar with the history of the time.  It is, from the first, a conversation (in the vein of Mortimer Adler’s Great Conversation) between Weiner and other historians, past and present.

Weiner’s approach at presenting his thesis is methodical and topical rather than chronological.  Although there is a fair amount of biographical information interspersed throughout, Madison’s Metronome is not a biography.  Instead it is a look at Madison’s mind and his understanding of the system that he is often credited with building.  His approach works in part because, although Madison’s thinking matured and evolved throughout his long life, he remained remarkably consistent on many things, chief among them, his vision of the role of time in a democratic republic.  Although Weiner doesn’t explicitly say so, his analysis of Madison’s thinking leads to one inescapable conclusion  – Madison was one smart guy.  Supporting this assessment, we’ll begin our review of Weiner’s book by quoting the opening paragraph,

Twelve-year-olds do not read Michel de Montaigne anymore, much less take notes.  James Madison did both, and a circa 1763 entry in his child commonplace book indicates that one of the French essayist’s observations made a particular impression: “Time,” Montaigne wrote and Madison transcribed, “is the Sovereign Physician of our Passions, & gains its End chiefly by supplying our imaginations with other & new Affairs, wearing out the Old by new impressions.” To this, Madison added an observation of his own: “Our passions are like Torrents, which may be diverted, but not obstructed.”

Weiner does a masterful job of showing how these two ideas shaped Madison’s thinking about republican government for his entire life.  The first of these ideas comprises Weiner’s primary thesis on the role of time in moderating the passions which rule the majority in society.  The second is Madison’s practical understanding of human nature and it’s inevitability.

Throughout the course of the book, Weiner makes a series of compelling arguments to support his view that Madison was not opposed to majority rule in the way many have interpreted his writings to say. Instead, Madison believed that majority rule was inevitable and, in fact, the only truly just mechanism of governance.  This is not to say that Madison did not see the dangers inherent in the formation of an abusive majority to the rights of the minority.  But, Madison saw the risks of tyranny as being greater from government than from majority rule.  Madison saw the moderating influence of time, coupled with the broadest majority possible, as the best counter to the latter.  The checks and balances of the federal system were constructed as an answer to the former.  But even this mechanism is based on utilizing the moderating influence of time to ensure that the passions of the moment were given time to abate.  The different election cycles of congress – every two years for the House of Representatives, 3 offset six year cycles for the Senate, 4 year terms for the President, and lifetime tenures for the Supreme Court, were all part of this design.  Weiner characterizes,

… one function of the Constitution was to serve as a metronome, setting the proper tempo for republican politics.

Although Madison is often credited as the father of the Constitution, this was an honor that he firmly refused to accept.  Nevertheless, it is probably safe to say that without Madison we probably wouldn’t have a Constitution.  He may not have been responsible for writing it in its present form, but his influence moderated much of what was proposed by others.  Madison’s perspective is unique for many reasons, among them that he was one of the youngest delegates to the Convention and its last survivor.  It is thanks to Madison’s copious notes that we have a record of what transpired during those sweltering weeks in Philadelphia.

In Weiner’s view, historians poring over those notes, The Federalist, or any of his other writings, sometimes confuse Madison’s concern with the abuse of the majorities with opposition to majority rule.  Others falsely accuse Madison of being majoritarian only when it suited his argument.  Weiner makes a good case for Madison’s intellectual honesty on this topic.  Per his analysis, Madison saw majority rule as the only legitimate form of governance.  In fact, there is considerable evidence to support that Madison felt that a minority obstructing the will of the majority for too long was bound to be the source of civil unrest.  Weiner points to the Articles of Confederation and the ability of even one state to obstruct the will of the majority as being a major frustration to good government.

A key to understanding Madison as both a staunch federalist and a populist majoritarian, is to look at things the way he did.  In his view, liberalism (in the classical sense) and republicanism were not at odds with one another but operating on a different plane.  Madison considered majority rule as a mechanism for making decisions, and liberalism as a criterion for evaluating them.  The trick was to slow down the passions of the moment enough that reason would have time to evaluate the course.  That evaluation would be done by the people, through their representatives.  If a majority view cohered long enough to weather election cycles, Madison figured it was likely to be a fair reflection of majority interests.  If, on the other hand, the passions of the moment dissipated before they could take hold, then they probably weren’t in the true best interest of the majority anyway.

According to Weiner, Madison had faith that the majority would eventually make the right decisions, but in the short term, if not forced to consider the ramifications of what was being advocated, might enact legislation that was counter to the long term interest of society as whole.  Madison sought to inject time for reflection by erecting systematic barriers to hasty decisions.  Weiner contends that Madison never really questioned the right of majorities to impose their will, only their inability to discern the right course at times.

There was only one exception to this.  In matters of conscience, Madison felt that the majority had no claim on minority interest, but not for the reasons popularly ascribed to him.  For Madison, it was not that the individual should not be imposed upon by the majority but that the individual owed allegiance to God first, then government.

It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man’s right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority.  From A Memorial and Remonstrance written to the Virginia General Assembly.

Weiner explains,

The key to Madison’s argument lies in its syllogistic hierarchy of associations and the obligations that attend them.  These rise from “subordinate associations” to the “general authority” to the “Universal Sovereign.”  Conscience is the only assertion of right that logically outranks the general authority on this scale.  Conversely, and equally important, every other right deals with associations or activities – such as the individual’s possession of property – that would be located below the general authority on the same scale, and thus be regulable by it.  That is not to say the individual is at the mercy of the general authority – that is, the majority.  Again, the majority is obliged to maintain the rule of law, including in its regulation of rights.  The relevant point for the present analysis is that the individual’s right of conscience actually derives from the individual’s obligation to an authority that outranks society.  For another right to be comparably immune from majorities, it would have to entail obligations exceeding the individual’s obligation to society as well.  No other right contemplated in Madison’s writings meets that criterion.  The point, in sum, is not that society is not entitled to interfere with the individual.  Madison indicates clearly that it can.  What society is not entitled to do is interfere with the Creator’s superior claim to the individual’s allegiance.

This analysis may not sit well with contemporary discussions about individual rights or religion.   Madison recognized the danger inherent in majority rule but saw no alternative.  His reasoning was not on the basis of the rights of the individual, but the Creator’s superior claim.  Weiner doesn’t take sides in the argument, but contrasts Madison’s view with that of Thomas Paine, who posited that the rights of the individual were supreme in matters of conscience because the individual was supreme.  It would be interesting to explore Weiner’s thoughts on the merits of Madison’s argument in comparison with those of Bastiat.

What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense.

Each of us has a natural right — from God — to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties? If every person has the right to defend even by force — his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right — its reason for existing, its lawfulness — is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot logically have any other purpose or any other mission than that for which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force — for the same reason — cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.

Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our premise. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare to say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal rights of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?

If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.  The Law

But, this is of course outside of the realm of Weiner’s thesis, which is to explain Madison’s point of view rather than to critique it.  However, at the end of Madison’s Metronome Weiner does venture a few observations about the suitability of Madison’s system of temporal republicanism in the present day.

Whereas Madison believed decisions should take longer to make as their gravity increased, the contemporary ethos holds the opposite: the more urgent change is assumed to be, the more quickly it must be delivered.  … Success equals change divided by time (s=c/t).  The more change a political actor can deliver in a shorter period of time, the more successful he or she is assumed to be.

The application of this formula is problematic for several reasons, including the fact that it inherently classifies prudence as failure, at least insofar as prudence values inaction when change is not specifically warranted and gradualism when it is.  Change is not always necessary; sometimes, Madison might even say “usually,” mere governance is.  The chief flaw of the speed standard, however, is that it places stresses on the constitutional system that it was not designed to bear and was, on the contrary, specifically engineered to avert.  The result, we have seen, is a simultaneous and apparently endless escalation of both expectations and disappointments.

In conclusion, Weiner returns to an earlier theme not yet covered in this review.  Madison hoped that time, coupled with reverence for the Constitution, which would be strengthened by time, would help make the majority less prone to violent change.  He thought that with time, people would be less prone to modify or destroy the parchment barriers of the Constitution.  It was for this reason that he sought to inculcate reverence for the founding documents.

In a day when the Constitution is under attack from those who claim it is out-dated, when reverence for its principles is denigrated, one has to wonder if there isn’t a method to this madness.

Disclaimer:  The author of Principled Action is a primary author on What Would The Founders Think and also a good friend of this reviewer.

Principled Action is almost two books in one.   In conversations with the author this reviewer has even gone so far as to suggest that Mr. Best produce a derivative work for use in high school history / government classes.  As it is written, it provides an excellent analysis of the American Founding and what made it unique.  However, it also provides considerable insight into the motivations of the current grass-roots movement for a return to constitutionalism.  Thus Principled Action is 9 parts history and 1 part political philosophy. As is, Principled Action would be a valuable addition to any home-schoolers library, or school curricula.

This is not to suggest that Best’s book is not adult reading.  Anyone seeking to understand the principles on which the United States was founded will find a good explanation in  Principled Action.  Best begins by explaining that, although we fought for our independence against Great Britain, the government that we have now is not the government we had until 1789.  Sadly, many Americans probably don’t realize that the United States had two revolutions of government.  It was the second that gave us the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and all the subsequent amendments.  In Best’s words:

The writing and ratification of the Constitution made the United States of America unique. The origins of our republic were not by the sword, but through the calm, sedate medium of reason. There was a long and bloody revolution, but four years of peace had calmed the infant nation before the Founders collectively sat down to debate the design of a republic for millions yet unborn.

But it was a revolution, nonetheless.  At the end of the Constitutional Convention, an entirely new system of government was proposed for ratification by the States.  The men who crafted this system were men of Principled Action.  The Founders went beyond the philosophical hypotheses of the Enlightenment, combining the knowledge of hard-won experience of self-government with the idealism of principle.   Best identifies the following as Founding Principles:

1. Rights come from God, not government.
2. All political power emanates from the people.
3. A limited, representative republic protects liberty.
4. Consent of the governed requires a written constitution.
5. Liberty depends on the right to private property.

Principles and character were the hallmarks of the men who wrote the United States Constitution.  Several of the Founders went on to write the constitutions of their respective states.  They applied these same principles to those documents too.  George Mason, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry collectively wrote the Virginia Constitution

That no free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue and by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. XV from the Virginia Declaration of Rights.

A major aspect of character is the application of principle to action.   For the Founders, the type of action depended on the relative strengths of the person.  While Best points out that the Founders were not a homogenous group – they were united in their patriotism.  He characterizes these men as falling into one or more of four groups.

1. The firebrands and rabble-rousers: men like Sam Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Paine.
2. The warriors: men like Washington, Hamilton, and John Paul Jones.
3. Those who accepted a political role during the war: men like John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and George Clinton.
4. And those who, after the war, accepted the responsibility for creating a lasting government: men like James Madison, George Mason, and John Jay.

Principled Action focuses on those active in this last group.  Best is careful to provide context and careful footnoting for all the quotes liberally sprinkled throughout the book.  In fact, he explains that the seemingly endless and frequently contradictory statements of these extraordinary men is proof positive of their intellectual honesty.

We know what they thought—and we know their thinking was learned, intense, and at times acrimonious. Open debate gave everyone a voice, and opinions not only varied between different people, they often evolved over time within an individual person. Because thatâ€s what real debate does—it changes minds. One result of all this recorded history is that now when someone wants to justify a modern position, he or she can usually find a quote by one of the Founders that gives the impression the Founders once thought exactly as they do. This is disingenuous and unfair to the developing thought of the Founders. They studied endlessly, argued incessantly, and then made a choice, and that choice was based on what they genuinely believed was best for their country. Time and again, the Founders took principled action because they wanted to secure and protect liberty for generations.

Those in this group were extraordinary men for their intellect as well as their determination.

The thirty-two years of the founding were one of those rare historical moments where uncommon brilliance was the order of the day. Intelligent leaders not only seemed omni- present, but those principled leaders were driven by a fervent desire to create something great and lasting—and many rose to the challenge. George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Gouverneur Morris, Alexander Hamilton, John Adams, and a host of others didnâ€t just stage another revolution; they changed the course of history.

Millions world-wide owe them a debt of gratitude,

John Adamsâ€s second cousin, Samuel Adams, said, “Nothing is more essential to the establishment of manners in a state than that all persons employed in places of power and trust must be men of unexceptionable characters.” The language may be old-fashioned, but the meaning is clear. People in places of power need to be honorable. Character does matter. The United States of America was indeed lucky to have a large cadre of unexceptionable characters to take principled action during the early days of our country. Then again, perhaps lucky is not the proper word.

After a brief coverage of some of these unexceptionable characters, Best moves on to briefly discuss the writing of the Constitution, a task for which he is eminently qualified (see Tempest at Dawn).  The chapter entitled Who Wrote The Constitution begins with a quote by John Adams which sums it up succinctly.

The greatest single effort of national deliberation that this world has ever seen.

Part III of Principled Action is entitled Founding Principles.  Readers of WWTFT will recognize some of the themes that Best explores.  Appropriately enough, he starts with the fundamental and revolutionary concept that American freedom is based upon natural rights.  If authority comes from God, Nature’s God, or The Creator, as is claimed by the Framers, then it does not come from man.  If man derives his rights and responsibilities from God, rather than man-made (flawed) institutions, then such institutions only gain their legitimacy at the sufferance of those governed.  In such a scenario the chain of command is God -> man -> government.  Under the Divine Right of Kings, the order was God -> Government -> man.

In order to ensure that government remained subordinate to the people, the founders sought to implement structural limitations on the system.  These were:

1. EnumeratedPowers
2. BalancedPower
3. Checks on Power
4. Two-ChamberLegislature
5. Temporary Terms of Different Lengths
6. RestrictedTaxingAuthority

Over the course of the next two centuries, many of the safeguards the founders fought so hard to work through have been steadily eroded. Best points out that the federal taxing authority is one such example.

When the Constitution was written, the national government had limited taxing authority, primarily restricted to imposts, duties, and excise taxes. Money equals power, and the Founders believed the best way to harness national power was to restrict revenue. The Sixteenth Amendment gave the national government the power to collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, which is basically an unlimited taxing authority.

Best covers an extraordinary amount of territory in Principled Action and demonstrates that our republic is under attack from a multiplicity of vectors.   Not only has there been a concerted effort to remove the bulkheads put in place by the Framers, but there continue to be efforts to subvert the principles on which the United States was founded.  One such attack vector is the propensity to define the Constitution as a “living document.”  A malleable document subject to the vagaries of political winds, offers little protection against tyranny.

True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrong-doing by its prohibitions. And it does not lay its commands or prohibitions upon good men in vain, though neither have any effect on the wicked.  Marcus Tullius Cicero

But if the principles of justice were founded on the decrees of peoples, the edicts of princes, or the decisions of judges, then Justice would sanction robbery and adultery and forgery of wills, in case these acts were approved by the votes or decrees of the populace. But if so great a power belongs to the decisions and decrees of fools that the laws of Nature can be changed by their votes, then why do they not ordain that what is bad and baneful shall be considered good and salutary? Or, if a law can make justice out of injustice, can it not also make good out of bad?  Marcus Tullius Cicero

Or, as Thomas Jefferson observed:

Our peculiar security is in possession of a written Constitution.  Let us not make it a blank paper by construction.

The Constitution lays out the framework and defines the limits of government authority.  Best devotes several chapters to the thinking that went into its design as well as the issues of the time in which it was written.  In so doing, he offers clarity and exposes some of the stretched, or downright inaccurate interpretations prevalent today.  He debunks several popular myths about the misinterpretation of the Necessary and Proper clause, The Commerce clause and the General Welfare clause.  He also examines each of the three branches of government and looks at where things have gone awry.  For instance, the power of the presidency has increased on an astronomical scale in comparison with that of the other branches – or that of the people.  Best is careful to point out that the president’s power has also increased proportional to that of the country’s and that this is not necessarily a bad thing.  Would we want our president to be less powerful than some tin-pot dictator of a third world country.  No.  However, in the domestic and governmental realm it is time to reduce the power of government in general and to limit the executive branch in particular by reducing the nation’s spending, and thus reduce government’s ability to direct funding to favored entities and projects.  In Best’s words: “Spending equals power: power over people, because governments govern.”

Best concludes Principled Action with more of the kind of analysis that WWTFT was originally formed to explore.  In it, Best offers some advice on regaining the government formed by the second revolution.  One such suggestion is that we restore the Founders’ Suspicion of Powerful Government.  Only by reaffirming those Founding Principles can we once more become a people of Principled Action.