GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE

 

[U.S. House Chamber 1820]

[Published as part of Constituting America's Ninety Day Study on America's Founding Principles: Principle of a Legislative Branch Within a System of Government Closest to the People – Constituting America]

In advocating for establishing the Legislative Branch in the U.S. Constitution, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, writing under “PUBLIUS”, stated in Federalist No. 52:

“First. As it is essential to liberty that the government in general should have a common interest with the people, so it is particularly essential that the branch of it under consideration should have an immediate dependence on, and an intimate sympathy with, the people. Frequent elections are unquestionably the only policy by which this dependence and sympathy can be effectually secured…. It is a received and well-founded maxim, that where no other circumstances affect the case, the greater the power is, the shorter ought to be its duration.”

Madison and Hamilton explained how the Legislative Branch was fundamental to Americans remaining in control of their own government in FEDERALIST No. 57:

“The House of Representatives is so constituted as to support in the members an habitual recollection of their dependence on the people. Before the sentiments impressed on their minds by the mode of their elevation can be effaced by the exercise of power, they will be compelled to anticipate the moment when their power is to cease, when their exercise of it is to be reviewed, and when they must descend to the level from which they were raised; there forever to remain unless a faithful discharge of their trust shall have established their title to a renewal of it.”

Binding the Legislative Branch to the people built upon the precedents from America’s colonial period.

The Royal Charter that established Jamestown in Virginia evolved from governance by the Charter holders into governance by the King’s Representative (Royal Governor) and his Advisory Council. When the settlers demanded their own voice, the Virginia House of Burgesses, in 1619, became the first democratically elected legislative body in America. 

The House of Burgesses became a proving ground for what would become the U.S. House of Representatives. Drawing upon British tradition, revenue and spending bills originated in the House instead of the “upper chamber”. Drawing from British tradition, the members of the House held their positions for short periods of time, the better to be held closely accountable by those they represented.

Tying government closely to the people is foundational to America.  The reason America is a “federal” system, and not a “national system”, is to preserve state and local government.  This assures most public policy and public activity is closest to the people it serves and reflects their diversity.  Serving an urban New York City neighborhood is very different from serving a rural community in Montana.

America’s diversity is embodied in our nation’s motto: “E Pluribus Unum” – out of many, one.

Governing a diverse America is institutionalized in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Today, America is governed by 87,576 local units.  This includes 3,034 counties, 19,429 municipalities (cities, towns, villages), 16,504 townships, 13,506 school districts, and 35,052 special districts (such as water & sewer, fire, and conservation).

Except for Switzerland and Germany, European governments are national. Their policy and programs are based on “one size fits all”. National governments ultimately amplify regional and ethnic tensions.  England’s Acts of Union with Scotland (1707) and Ireland (1801) spawned countless conflicts.  Today, Scotland and Wales have separate Parliaments.  Ireland divided itself into a Free State and Northern Ireland in the wake of years of violence (1921).  England leaving the European Union in January 2020 reflected what happens when a weak parliament, which could have embraced diversity, was dominated by a powerful and unaccountable bureaucracy.

America’s federal structure, emphasizing government closest to the people, was chronicled by the Frenchman, Alexis Clerel, the Vicount de Tocqueville.

“Democracy in America” was published in two volumes (1835 and 1840).  It remains a foundational document describing how Americans benefit from local government.

“The village or township is the only association which is so perfectly natural that wherever a number of men are collected it seems to constitute itself. The town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a community, must necessarily exist in all nations….”

“….local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty. 

de Tocqueville recognized how Americans preserving local governance serves as a model for a better world:

"I believe that provincial [local] institutions are useful to all nations, but nowhere do they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst a democratic people.

The only nations which deny the utility of provincial [local] liberties are those which have fewest of them; in other words, those who are unacquainted with the institution are the only persons who pass a censure upon it.”

Thanks to the strength of local government, America remains an inspiration for all those who seek free and open societies. 

 

HOLDING GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABLE

 

[Published as part of Constituting America's Ninety Day Study on America's Founding Principles - Principle of Duty of the American People to Continually Maintain Checks on Government Power – Constituting America]

On November 19, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln spoke immortal words about the eternal mission for all Americans: “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth”.

 

Citizens holding government accountable begins with knowing what their government, at all levels, is doing.

 

Two long standing legal concepts provide the framework for citizens being eternally vigilant and government officials being consistently accountable: government documents should be public and government meetings should be public.

 

During the Virginia Ratifying Convention for the U.S. Constitution, Patrick Henry asserted public knowledge was the bulwark of protecting freedom, “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”

 

“Where are your checks in this government?…The most valuable end of government is the liberty of the inhabitants. No possible advantages can compensate for the loss of this privilege.”

 

Patrick Henry’s linkage of protecting liberty to citizen access echoed James Madison’s commentary in Federalist 49:

"As the people are the only legitimate fountain of power, and it is from them that the constitutional charter, under which the several branches of government hold their power, is derived, it seems strictly consonant to the republican theory, to recur to the same original authority, not only whenever it may be necessary to enlarge, diminish, or new-model the powers of the government, but also whenever any one of the departments may commit encroachments…it must be allowed to prove that a constitutional road to the decision of the people ought to be marked out and kept open.”

Madison raised concerns about those who aspire to unbridled power.

“The same influence which had gained them an election into the legislature, would gain them a seat in the convention. If this should not be the case with all, it would probably be the case with many, and pretty certainly with those leading characters, on whom every thing depends in such bodies…it is the reason, alone, of the public, that ought to control and regulate the government.”

Public access to view the proceedings of House and Senate began in December 1795. 

The rapid growth of the Federal Government during President Franklin Roosevelt’s “New Deal” raised concerns about public access to Executive Branch documents and proceedings. Many of Roosevelt’s new agencies had unprecedented powers to create laws and regulations outside the reach of Congress. On June 11, 1946, the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) was enacted to re-establish balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches.  The APA also outlined how the public would be informed and allowed to comment on Executive Branch actions:

1.    to require agencies to keep the public informed of their organization, procedures and rules

2.    to provide for public participation in the rulemaking process, for instance through public comment

3.    to establish uniform standards for the conduct of formal rulemaking and adjudication

4.    to define the scope of judicial review

The APA had its limitations as bureaucrats continually found ways to avoid compliance. A more explicit federal law mandating public access to unclassified government meetings, the Government in the Sunshine Act was enacted September 13, 1976.  Similar “Sunshine Laws” were enacted among state and local governments.  However, to this day, citizens still have to file lawsuits to enforce public access as elected and appointed officials fail to provide “adequate public notice” to hide questionable actions.

The practice of public accessing public documents began on December 2, 1766, ten years before the American Revolution. Sweden passed the “Freedom of the Press Act”. Among other things—it gave Swedish citizens access to uncensored government documents. This was the first “freedom of information” law in history.

The world's first law requiring "publicity for official documents" was initiated by the Finnish-Swedish enlightenment thinker Anders Chydenius, a member of the Swedish Diet (Parliament).

FOIA@250: World’s First Freedom of Information Act Dates to 1766 | National Security Archive (gwu.edu)

“No evidence should be needed that a certain freedom of writing and printing is one of the strongest bulwarks of a free organization of the state, as, without it, the estates would not have sufficient information for the drafting of good laws, and those dispensing justice would not be monitored, nor would the subjects know the requirements of the law, the limits of the rights of government, and their responsibilities. Education and ethical conduct would be crushed; coarseness in thought, speech, and manners would prevail, and dimness would darken the entire sky of our freedom in a few years.”

Chydenius’ Freedom of Print Act was intended to vitalize political discussions. To achieve this objective, Chydenius asserted it was essential that the citizens had access to official documents in order to see how the state was run. Seven of the ordinance’s fifteen paragraphs were dedicated to detailing this public access.

While the Administrative Procedures Act mandated information access, it rarely happened. Formalizing “Freedom of Information Access” for American citizens took longer. The American Society of Newspaper Editors commissioned Harold L. Cross, legal counsel for the New York Herald Tribune, to investigate the issue of excessive government secrecy. Cross’s 1953 report was published as a book titled The People’s Right to Know.

 

Cross wrote that virtually every part of American government operated under what amounted to an “official cult of secrecy”; that this secrecy had become “a breeding ground for corruption; that it was leading to a rise in public mistrust in government; and that all of these things combined were doing serious damage to American democracy itself.” Cross 400-page report made the case that Congress must craft new legislation that gave American citizens greater access to the inner workings of their government. In the early 1950s, The People’s Right to Know became a manual for the blossoming “freedom of information” movement.

 

In 1955, former businessman John Moss (D-CA) began a 12-year effort to codify Cross’s recommendation by passing the Federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).

 

On June 20, 1966, it passed the House of Representatives (306 to 0). It was then sent on to President Lyndon Johnson.

 

Johnson opposed the legislation but allowed it to become law on July 4, 1966.

 

On this 4^th of July we should celebrate this milestone in the public’s power to observe government decisions and maintain checks on government power. 

 

It reminds us that citizens must remain constantly vigilant to protect our god given rights. 

 

If Elected, I Promise to ….

[Guest Contributor - Donald G. Mutersbaugh Sr.]

The following are agenda items that current Democrat candidates for the President have indicated they will pursue if they are elected to the presidency:

Socialism (in general), Laxer Abortion Laws and Infanticide, Raise Income Taxes, Increase Social Security Payouts, Open Borders, Defund Military, Confiscate Guns, Eliminate Usage of Fossil Fuels, Defend/Support Illegal Aliens, Suppress Free Speech, Reparations for Slavery, Abolish Electoral College, Free College/Forgive College Loan Debt, Universal Child Care, Ban Fracking/Offshore Drilling, Increase the Estate Tax, Implement a Wealth Tax, Raise Minimum Wage, Rejoin Iran Nuclear Deal, Support DC and Puerto Rico Statehoods, Contraceptive Mandate, Increase Funding of  Planned Parenthood, Repeal Hyde Amendment, End Capital Punishment, Never Implement Voter ID, Pack the Supreme Court, Housing Give-away, Medicare for All, Weaken the Economy, and the Green New Deal. There may be more – I have lost track!

I could not even begin to estimate how many trillions of dollars any one or more of these items would cost the American taxpayer – wealthy and/or middle class. Some, like confiscation of guns ("Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47!") do not have monetary implications, but extreme social implications: can anyone say Civil War and loss of life?

How about all these different health plan alternatives: Medicare for all? Has anybody even attempted to explain how this would work? All of the candidates seem to be very vague – and with good reason! How much is this going to really cost? Eliminate the private insurance industry? I don’t think so! Protect and expand on Obama care? I guess we can put a few million more people at risk of losing their coverage!

How about a new tax, a wealth tax? That way you can tax a person’s income, tax their estate which may have grown in value due to their prudent investments as opposed to consumption, and in the meantime combat income inequality by once again taking from the rich and giving to the poor – without regard to their contribution to society? 

Some have said that to accept a tax system that will never truly ensure that the rich pay their fair share (whatever that is!) will always have societal inequality. Funny: isn’t that the essence of capitalism? Isn’t it an economic system in which the factors of production are controlled by private owners for profit? “… the Ultra-Millionaire Tax, [is] a bold proposal to tax the wealth of the richest 0.1% of Americans.  The legislation, which applies only to households with a net worth of $50 million or more, is estimated by leading economists to raise $2.75 trillion in tax revenue over a ten-year period…. ‘It's time to fundamentally transform our tax code so that we tax the wealth of the ultra-rich, not just their income,’ said Senator Warren.” https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senator-warren-unveils-proposal-to-tax-wealth-of-ultra-rich-americans

Let’s talk a little bit about eliminating the Electoral College. For an explanation of the Electoral College, please read “The Electoral College” by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC Office of Election Administration.  http://electoralcollegehistory.com/electoral/fecmemo.asp  

The other required reading is Federalist Paper # 68 by Hamilton.

 “The Electoral College was created for two reasons. The first purpose was to create a buffer between the population and the selection of a President. The second as part of the structure of the government that gave extra power to the smaller states.

“The first reason that the founders created the Electoral College is hard to understand today. The founding fathers were afraid of direct election to the Presidency. They feared a tyrant could manipulate public opinion and come to power…

“Hamilton and the other founders believed that the electors would be able to ensure that only a qualified person becomes President. They thought that with the Electoral College no one would be able to manipulate the citizenry…

“The Electoral College is also part of compromises made at the convention to satisfy the small states. Under the system of the Electoral College, each state had the same number of electoral votes as they have a representative in Congress.” https://www.historycentral.com/elections/Electoralcollgewhy.html

Since the Electoral College process is part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution it would be necessary to pass a Constitutional amendment to change this system.” 

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html 

This would require three fourths of the states to ratify the change which is highly unlikely since the smaller states would lose their power.

I have only briefly discussed a couple of the items that opened this article. I leave it to the discerning reader to examine each item more fully. I would ask only that you extend your thinking beyond the realm of your own existence and critically evaluate how each item would impact the country as a whole. While many of these candidates would try to have you believe that each proposal only affects a few people, they fail to address the synergies that would be developed from many of these proposals being implemented simultaneously. 

They also don’t account for the interrelationships between the items nor the fact that there is a limited pool of resources available to tax to support each of these items. Taxpayer money will eventually give out. When this happens, of course, welfare and disability payments will stop; food stamps – no more; etc., and subsequently, a complete collapse of our economy at all levels.

It is amazing to me that the hatred towards President Trump is so great that many wish our country would have a recession because they think that would get rid of him. And all of this because he is doing what he said he would: Make America Great Again! And he is doing this in spite of, not because of any support from the Democrats who want him – and by extension, the country – to fail. 

All of the Democrat Presidential Candidates are making empty promises; there is no way to implement their agenda. Even worse, if they succeed in implementing even parts of their agenda, the country will tilt more toward socialism and eventual failure as a successful capitalist society. President Trump’s new campaign slogans, “Keep America Great” and “Promises Made, Promises Kept”, say it all. 

Normally, I would not worry about his reelection at all! But in today’s society, everyone believes that there are all these freebies to be had. For some reason, many believe that socialism is good – in spite of its abject failure whenever it is tried. My fervent prayer is that people enter the voting booths having separated empty promises from reality – and reelect President Trump!

Donald G. Mutersbaugh, Sr. earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of Maryland and his Master of Business Administration degree from Mary Washington College. He is the former Associate Administrator of Information Resources for the U.S House of Representatives under Speaker Newt Gingrich.

SAVING FEDERALISM = SAVING AMERICA

“CONSTITUTING AMERICA” SERIES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT

America is built on local government.  The future of our nation depends on local communities remaining at the core of representative democracy.

In 1831, the Frenchman, Alexis Clerel, the Vicount de Tocqueville, along with his colleague Gustave de Beaumont, was sent by the French government to study America.  While their mission was officially to review prisons, their nine-month journey produced one of the great classics on America’s civic culture.

“Democracy in America” was published in two volumes (1835 and 1840).  It remains a foundational document describing American exceptionalism.

At its core is de Tocqueville’s description of local government:

The village or township is the only association which is so perfectly natural that wherever a number of men are collected it seems to constitute itself. The town, or tithing, as the smallest division of a community, must necessarily exist in all nations….

….local assemblies of citizens constitute the strength of free nations. Town-meetings are to liberty what primary schools are to science; they bring it within the people’s reach, they teach men how to use and how to enjoy it. A nation may establish a system of free government, but without the spirit of municipal institutions it cannot have the spirit of liberty.

America has always been a nation of communities.  Its pattern of settlement, through Royal Charters, gave wide latitude for establishing local governance.  Being over 5,500 miles from London, made detailed oversight of colonies impossible.  By necessity, and by desire, colonists embraced local authority over distant rule from a capitol or nation.  When distant rulers attempted to increase their control, colonists ignited a Revolution.

As de Tocqueville explains:

The revolution of the United States was the result of a mature and dignified taste for freedom, and not of a vague or ill-defined craving for independence.

The first form of government was the Articles of Confederation, which created a very weak national government.  External threats and internal dysfunction led to the U.S. Constitution, with extensive safeguards for local sovereignty.

America established a federal government, which means power is shared between national and state government, and the majority of governmental actions take place at the local level.  This is institutionalized in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Today, America is governed by 87,576 local units.  This includes 3,034 counties, 19,429 municipalities (cities, towns, villages), 16,504 townships, 13,506 school districts, and 35,052 special districts (such as water & sewer, fire, and conservation).

These independent, and interdependent, local governments reflect the diversity that is unique to America.  In America, the preferred government is one closest to those its serves.

de Tocqueville links local government to being fundamental to a free people:

In the township, as well as everywhere else, the people are the only source of power; but in no stage of government does the body of citizens exercise a more immediate influence. In America ‘the people’ is a master whose exigencies demand obedience to the utmost limits of possibility.

Municipal independence is therefore a natural consequence of the principle of the sovereignty of the people in the United States: all the American republics recognize it more or less;

de Tocqueville uses the townships of New England as his primary example of the effectiveness of local government and their role in establishing America’s unique democracy:

The native of New England is attached to his township because it is independent and free: his co-operation in its affairs ensures his attachment to its interest; the well-being it affords him secures his affection; and its welfare is the aim of his ambition and of his future exertions: he takes a part in every occurrence in the place; he practices the art of government in the small sphere within his reach; he accustoms himself to those forms which can alone ensure the steady progress of liberty; he imbibes their spirit; he acquires a taste for order, comprehends the union or the balance of powers, and collects clear practical notions on the nature of his duties and the extent of his rights.

While discourse over major national and global issues attract the most attention, it is local government that most directly affects our daily lives.  The quality of the school children attend, the condition of roads driven, the safety of neighborhoods, the taste and pressure of water coming from the tap, saving lives and property from fire or accident, are locally governed and provided.

de Tocqueville noted the benefits of locally focused government in America:

In no country in the world do the citizens make such exertions for the common weal; and I am acquainted with no people which has established schools as numerous and as efficacious, places of public worship better suited to the wants of the inhabitants, or roads kept in better repair.

He saw local government promoting individual initiative while restraining growth of a centralized state:

As the administrative authority is within the reach of the citizens, whom it in some degree represents, it excites neither their jealousy nor their hatred; as its resources are limited, everyone feels that he must not rely solely on its assistance…This action of individual exertions, joined to that of the public authorities, frequently performs what the most energetic central administration would be unable to execute.

Thanks to the strength of local government, America remains an inspiration for all those who seek free and open societies. 

While chronicling America in its early years, de Tocqueville recognized how the United States’ embrace of local governance already served as a model for a better world:

I believe that provincial [local] institutions are useful to all nations, but nowhere do they appear to me to be more indispensable than amongst a democratic people.

The only nations which deny the utility of provincial [local] liberties are those which have fewest of them; in other words, those who are unacquainted with the institution are the only persons who pass a censure upon it.

                     

AMERICA'S SURVIVAL

[Published in NEWSMAX]

There is far more at stake in the November Mid-Term elections than whether or not Trump will be impeached, or America’s political center of gravity shifts leftward.

Voters will determine the survival of our federal republic.

America now has over five hundred jurisdictions, including states and municipalities, with sanctuary policies.

These policies are designed to protect illegal aliens from the consequences of the laws they violate. They bar local officials from enforcing federal law and cooperating with federal law enforcement agencies.

Democrats are the ones initiating, approving, and implementing sanctuary laws. They invoke the 10^th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which limits federal jurisdiction and forms the basis of America’s federal system of government.

Democrats have a long history of hypocrisy with federalism. They ignore it when it furthers their goal of expanding federal regulation and control. They embrace it when they wish to either enslave humans in the 19^th Century, suppress minority rights in the 20^th Century, or eliminate the rule of law and national sovereignty in the 21^st Century.

America’s federal system intentionally created tension between local and national authority, but also outlined the parameters of this contention. On March 1, 1781, just seven months before the British surrender at Yorktown, the Articles of Confederation went into effect. The Articles established a very weak and fragmented national government. Its flaws became immediately apparent. Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Paper15:

“Each State, yielding to the persuasive voice of immediate interest or convenience, has successively withdrawn its support, till the frail and tottering edifice seems ready to fall upon our heads, and to crush us beneath its ruins.”

This impending disunion led to the Constitutional Convention in 1787. The U.S. Constitution remains the most brilliant and important document in human history. It outlines a timeless framework for addressing competing interests in the public sphere. It is a universal “rules of engagement” that has served America well, and guides freedom loving societies throughout the world. It balances the powers of states and the national government to establish, enforce, and administer law.

James Madison outlined this confluence in the Federalist Paper 39:

“The proposed Constitution, therefore, is, in strictness, neither a national nor a federal Constitution, but a composition of both. In its foundation it is federal, not national; in the sources from which the ordinary powers of the government are drawn, it is partly federal and partly national; in the operation of these powers, it is national, not federal; in the extent of them, again, it is federal, not national...”

Five hundred local and state governments declaring sanctuary status for illegal aliens fundamentally threatens 229 years of legal precedents and could end federalism. Nullification strikes at the very heart of America’s civic culture and national unity.

In 1850, Democrats ignored Federalism by passing the Fugitive Slave Act. It declared that the Federal Government must enforce slavery, and the rights of slave owners, even in states and jurisdictions that had abolished it. Nicknamed the “Bloodhound Law”, it empowered teams of slave catchers to invade “Free” states. It added to growing sectional tensions.

In 1860, Free states rebelled against these intrusive federal laws by electing Republican Abraham Lincoln. Democrats in Slave states immediately nullified the election by invoking “state rights”, voting succession, and causing the Civil War.

After their defeat, Southern Democrats tried to reverse their defeat by demanding an end to reconstruction. Compromises that resolved the 1876 disputed election ended the era of African-American emancipation and empowerment in the South. Once again, Democrats invoked “states rights” as they methodically suppressed “freedmen”.

Starting with President Woodrow Wilson, Democrats choose to ignore “states rights” and federalism during their massive expansion of government regulation and activism. Republicans on the U.S. Supreme Court maintained the federal balance by striking down many of these federal intrusions.

In 1939, sufficient retirements and deaths allowed President Franklin Roosevelt to reshape the court and establish nearly eighty years of a center-left court.

In 1957, Republican President Dwight Eisenhower, sent federal troops into Little Rock, Arkansas to enforce racial integration in its public schools. Southern Democrats rallied around “states rights” to nullify federal Civil Rights laws and court rulings.

Now, Democrats are embracing nullification of immigration laws to protect illegal aliens over security concerns and the integrity of U.S. sovereignty.

The 2018 Mid-Term elections will be the opportunity for voters to end this threat to America’s federal system by removing state and local officials who are trampling the U.S. Constitution. They can also embolden Republicans in Congress to end federal funding of these rogue regimes. The alternative is a national crisis not seen since the American Civil War or even since the collapse of the Articles of Confederation.

[Scot Faulkner advises global organizations and universities on healthcare reform and innovation. He served as the Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives. He also served on the White House Staff, and as an Executive Branch Appointee.]