An Editorial in the New York Times - perfect example of what is wrong
The editorial was written by
Sanford Levinson: a professor of law and government at the University of Texas, Austin, is the author of �Framed: America�s 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance.�.
Looking at the U. Texas website linked above, Levinson is a high mucky-muck in progressive circles.
Levinson is also a clueless moonbat. A Moron (and I apologize to all of the wonderful Morons out there for lumping him in with you). He should not be teaching if this is an example of his reasoned writing.
Here is his editorial with my comments inline (a
Fisking):
Our Imbecilic Constitution
By Sanford Levinson
Advocating the adoption of the new Constitution drafted in Philadelphia, the authors of �The Federalist Papers� mocked the �imbecility� of the weak central government created by the Articles of Confederation.
First of all, there are three authors of The Federalist Papers and only one of them was in favor of big government. Second, the word "imbecility" crops up
five times in the 85 essays and the last reference is in #22, it does not appear in later essays -- they moved on:
FEDERALIST No. 9
it has been the cause of incurable disorder and imbecility in the government.
FEDERALIST No. 15
Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our government even forbids them to treat with us.
FEDERALIST No. 18
By these arts this union, the last hope of Greece, the last hope of ancient liberty, was torn into pieces; and such imbecility and distraction introduced,
FEDERALIST No. 20
Imbecility in the government; discord among the provinces; foreign influence and indignities; a precarious existence in peace, and peculiar calamities from war.
FEDERALIST No. 22
The system of quotas and requisitions, whether it be applied to men or money, is, in every view, a system of imbecility in the Union
It was Alexander Hamilton who favored a central Federal Government with larger powers. In FEDERALIST No. 15 he says:
To the People of the State of New York.
IN THE course of the preceding papers, I have endeavored, my fellow-citizens, to place before you, in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness. I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together be severed or dissolved by ambition or by avarice, by jealousy or by misrepresentation. In the sequel of the inquiry through which I propose to accompany you, the truths intended to be inculcated will receive further confirmation from facts and arguments hitherto unnoticed. If the road over which you will still have to pass should in some places appear to you tedious or irksome, you will recollect that you are in quest of information on a subject the most momentous which can engage the attention of a free people, that the field through which you have to travel is in itself spacious, and that the difficulties of the journey have been unnecessarily increased by the mazes with which sophistry has beset the way. It will be my aim to remove the obstacles from your progress in as compendious a manner as it can be done, without sacrificing utility to despatch.
In pursuance of the plan which I have laid down for the discussion of the subject, the point next in order to be examined is the "insufficiency of the present Confederation to the preservation of the Union." It may perhaps be asked what need there is of reasoning or proof to illustrate a position which is not either controverted or doubted, to which the understandings and feelings of all classes of men assent, and which in substance is admitted by the opponents as well as by the friends of the new Constitution. It must in truth be acknowledged that, however these may differ in other respects, they in general appear to harmonize in this sentiment, at least, that there are material imperfections in our national system, and that something is necessary to be done to rescue us from impending anarchy. The facts that support this opinion are no longer objects of speculation. They have forced themselves upon the sensibility of the people at large, and have at length extorted from those, whose mistaken policy has had the principal share in precipitating the extremity at which we are arrived, a reluctant confession of the reality of those defects in the scheme of our federal government, which have been long pointed out and regretted by the intelligent friends of the Union.
We may indeed with propriety be said to have reached almost the last stage of national humiliation. There is scarcely anything that can wound the pride or degrade the character of an independent nation which we do not experience. Are there engagements to the performance of which we are held by every tie respectable among men? These are the subjects of constant and unblushing violation. Do we owe debts to foreigners and to our own citizens contracted in a time of imminent peril for the preservation of our political existence? These remain without any proper or satisfactory provision for their discharge. Have we valuable territories and important posts in the possession of a foreign power which, by express stipulations, ought long since to have been surrendered? These are still retained, to the prejudice of our interests, not less than of our rights. Are we in a condition to resent or to repel the aggression? We have neither troops, nor treasury, nor government. Are we even in a condition to remonstrate with dignity? The just imputations on our own faith, in respect to the same treaty, ought first to be removed. Are we entitled by nature and compact to a free participation in the navigation of the Mississippi? Spain excludes us from it. Is public credit an indispensable resource in time of public danger? We seem to have abandoned its cause as desperate and irretrievable. Is commerce of importance to national wealth? Ours is at the lowest point of declension. Is respectability in the eyes of foreign powers a safeguard against foreign encroachments? The imbecility of our government even forbids them to treat with us. Our ambassadors abroad are the mere pageants of mimic sovereignty. Is a violent and unnatural decrease in the value of land a symptom of national distress? The price of improved land in most parts of the country is much lower than can be accounted for by the quantity of waste land at market, and can only be fully explained by that want of private and public confidence, which are so alarmingly prevalent among all ranks, and which have a direct tendency to depreciate property of every kind. Is private credit the friend and patron of industry? That most useful kind which relates to borrowing and lending is reduced within the narrowest limits, and this still more from an opinion of insecurity than from the scarcity of money. To shorten an enumeration of particulars which can afford neither pleasure nor instruction, it may in general be demanded, what indication is there of national disorder, poverty, and insignificance that could befall a community so peculiarly blessed with natural advantages as we are, which does not form a part of the dark catalogue of our public misfortunes?
God that man could write -- they all could. A perfect example of the problems with todays education system.
Anyway, Hamilton was arguing for a Central Government large enough to raise a military, stave off anarchy, establish currency (he doesn't out and out say this but alludes to it in the last paragraph) and present a common National face to the rest of the world.
This is, compared to today, a very small Federal Government and remember, of the three authors, Hamilton was the one favoring the "Big Government"
Back to Sanford Levinson's Editorial:
Nearly 225 years later, critics across the spectrum call the American political system dysfunctional, even pathological. What they don�t mention, though, is the role of the Constitution itself in generating the pathology.
Pot meet Kettle. The Constitution is not generating the pathology, the blatant non-compliance
IS the pathology.
Back to Sanford Levinson's Editorial:
Ignore, for discussion�s sake, the clauses that helped to entrench chattel slavery until it was eliminated by a brutal Civil War. Begin with the Senate and its assignment of equal voting power to California and Wyoming; Vermont and Texas; New York and North Dakota. Consider that, although a majority of Americans since World War II have registered opposition to the Electoral College, we will participate this year in yet another election that �battleground states� will dominate while the three largest states will be largely ignored.
Give Me a Fscking break -- this misunderstanding of Article 1. Section 2 is ass-backwards. This interpretation is dead-stupid and demeaning to the supposed intelligence of Mr. Levinson. I excerpt:
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
The three-fifths rule was not to limit political power to the slaves, it was to persuade the States that allowed slaves to set them free. The power of each State was directly tied to the population. If your State had 10,000 'free Persons' and 20,000 'all other Persons', you were represented as though you had 22,000 'free Persons'. If you set your slaves free, your State would be represented proportional to your population of 30,000 'free Persons'. Again, this was to persuade slave-holding States to mend their ways. If the slaves were given no status, those States would never have signed on.
As for the Senate and its equal voting power, our Government is based on a series of checks and balances. The House is elected by the residents of the State and, until 1913 (17th Amendment -- 1913, Woodrow (spit) Wilson, Pres.), the Senators were appointed by the State Government.
Since it is the House that originates spending bills, if the people of WA State decided to float a bill that gave everyone free money, the Senate could nip this run on the treasury in the bud. Now that Senators are elected by the same people that elect the Representatives, this Check/Balance is eliminated. A bug, not a Feature.
As for the Electoral College, the
number of Electors that each State gets is the number of Senators (two) and Representatives it has. Completely linked to the population of that State. As for Levinson's:
the three largest states
Voting is based on population, not landmass.
It is 11PM, I am tired. I will continue with this tomorrow.
Mr. Levinson -- shame on you.
New York Times Editorial Staff -- shame on you.
Posted by DaveH at May 30, 2012 10:04 PM