HAMILTON - AMERICA's FIRST CAPITALIST

[Part of Constituting America’s 90 Day Study - Days that Shaped America]

Alexander Hamilton was America’s first Chief Operations Officer (COO).

Along with James Madison, Hamilton crafted the best operating system ever devised in human history.  The U.S. Constitution provided a framework for sharing power and resolving differences.  Madison and Hamilton provided details for operationalizing the Constitution with their Federal Papers essays.  These Papers remain integral to interpreting the original intent for court cases to this day.

America was blessed with George Washington, the most indispensable person in our nation’s history. However, Washington needed to augment his phenomenal leadership skills with Hamilton’s management acumen.  During the American Revolution, Hamilton translated Washington’s military strategy into clear and concise orders to his commanders.  Now as President, Washington needed Hamilton to translate the Founders’ vision, and his policies, into reality.

With Jefferson still conducting diplomacy in Europe, Hamilton became not just the first Treasury Secretary, but effectively functioned as Washington’s “prime minister”.  Decisions and documents, down to minute detail, flowed from Hamilton’s pen, creating the Executive Branch. 

Hamilton’s love of administrative detail was matched by his devotion to commerce.

He was the only “modern man” among the Founders.  Hamilton grew-up outside the American colonies and had a full appreciation of how nations interacted.  As an accounting clerk for various trading companies in the West Indies, Hamilton developed a deep understanding for the inner workings of international trade and finance.  His was America’s first “capitalist”.  The systems and institutions he put in place laid the foundation for America becoming the greatest economic power in the world.

Hamilton greatest achievement was managing the onerous debts arising from the Revolutionary War.  Each state incurred debt as their individual state militias needed to be paid for back wages.  Both national and state level soldiers were paid in bonds or “IOUs”.  After the war many cash-strapped soldiers sold these bonds/“IOUs” to speculators for a fraction of their worth.  Countless suppliers of their armed forces sued for nonpayment.  The paper currency issued during the war was “not worth a Continental” and legions of war veterans, farmers, merchants, and craftsman (like blacksmiths, barrel makers, and carpenters) demanded payment, declaring Continental script were “IOUs”.

The total debt was $79 million: $54 million owed by the national government and $25 million owed by the states.  Hamilton saw repayment of this debt as a strategic and moral imperative: “States, like individuals, who observe their engagements are respected and trusted, while the reverse is the fate of those who pursue an opposite conduct.”

Without a debt repayment strategy, the IOUs and lawsuits would continue to cripple America’s economy with unbridled speculation and uncertainty. Trust in the Federal government’s ability to meet its obligations had to be restored.  Something had to be done.  Hamilton declared, “In nothing are appearances of greater moment than in whatever regards credit.”

Repayment of debts would allow America to enter into international agreements and borrow funds for investing in business ventures and stimulate economic growth.  Hamilton observed that the American economy was stagnating from a limited money supply, deflation of land values, and no liquid capital. He also was concerned that if America was seen as financially broke and politically fragmented, foreign governments may lure individual states with separate debt financing arrangements. 

The solution was to consolidate all public debt and set aside some of the steady federal revenue to service interest and payoff the principal.  These were revolutionary and futuristic concepts in 1790.

It was his conviction that, “an assumption of the debts of particular states by the union and a like provision for them as for those of the union will be a measure of sound policy and substantial justice.”

Hamilton determined that consolidating all the Revolutionary War debt would accomplish several things.  [1] It would bring order from chaos with one large debt instead of thousands of smaller ones.  [2] It would simplify the management and repayment of the debt. [3] It would establish loyalty among the creditors and bond/IOU holders who would promote the stability and success of the federal government to assure their claims were paid. 

Another aspect of Hamilton’s solution was that the U.S. Constitution gave the federal government the exclusive right to collect import duties.  The Federal Government assuming state debt would prevent states from trying to return to the Article of Confederation when states levied duties on interstate commerce.  Hamilton wanted to unify America and forge a national economy.

The critical element in assuming all debt was to have a unified America attract foreign investment through issuing federal government bonds.  Such bonded debt would create investment partners who would forge trade relationships that allowed the U.S. Government to raise the necessary revenue to meet its debt obligations.  Hamilton sought to create a web of economic loyalties and relationships that bound everyone to supporting everyone’s economic wellbeing.  In doing so, Hamilton would establish America as a major player in the modern international financial system.

Hamilton’s vision and how to implement it, was at the core of his fifty-one-page “Report on Public Credit” to the Congress.  It was his hope that Congress would pass the necessary legislation to authorize implementation of this integrated plan.  Any editions or subtractions would ruin his delicate balance between the various economic interests.  Hamilton worried, “Credit is the entire thing. Every part of it has the nicest sympathy with every other part.  Wound one limb and the whole tree shrinks and decays.”

Many in Congress rejected the plan as confusing and overly complex.  Some saw it as too much like the way England financed its wars.  Other declared it a bailout for speculators.  Even Madison refuted it.  As the assumption plan related to spending, its first test was in the House of Representatives.

The House debate was a sensation.  Packed galleries watched Madison rail against the plan as a “betrayal of the American Revolution”.  Hamilton, a member of the Executive Branch, mustered his votes behind the scenes. On April 12, 1790, the House defeated the debt assumption plan: 29 ayes to 31 nays.

The death of debt assumption found resurrection in the future location of the nation’s capital.  Hamilton and northerners wanted the capital to remain in New York or return to Philadelphia.  Southerners wanted in in the South and located outside an existing urban area.  Jefferson saw this as a struggle between his vision of an agrarian nation versus the grime of industry.  Madison and Henry Lee had purchased land along the Potomac River in the hopes that Jefferson would prevail.

All sides wanted a final decision on the future of the Nation’s Capital, and symbolically the character of the nation.  To break the stalemate, the key players, Jefferson, Hamilton, Madison, and several others gathered for dinner on June 20, 1790, at Jefferson’s townhouse in New York City. 

After much food, libations, and discussion a deal was struck.  The Nation’s Capital would be along the banks of the Potomac between Georgetown in Maryland and Alexandria in Virginia.  In exchange for Hamilton convincing northerners to support this location, Jefferson and Madison would support passage of Hamilton’s Debt Assumption plan.

On July 10, 1790 the House passed the Residence Act moving the temporary Capital back to Philadelphia and designating a ten-square mile area along the Potomac as the permanent Capital.  The House then passed the Assumption bill on July 26.  The Senate approved the plan on August 4, 1790.

Senator Daniel Webster placed Hamilton’s achievement into historical perspective. 

“The fabled birth of Minerva from the brain of Jove was hardly more sudden or perfect than the financial system of the United States as it burst forth from the conception of Alexander Hamilton.”

Home Alone

This also appears at http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/congress-communication-breakdown-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner/


The world where House and Senate Chambers are packed with Members attentively listening to their colleagues ended long before films like “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and “Advise and Consent” paid it homage.


The Legislative Branch was intended to be the shining ideal of ordered debate and civil discourse. 


Thomas Jefferson eloquently spoke of this noble mission, “Congress is the great commanding theater of this nation. It is the place where laws are made.” [1]


Originally, the Chambers themselves were designed to foster the exchange of ideas and the forging of national policy through intellectual inquiry. [2]


Today both Houses of the Legislative Branch are pale reflections of these ideals.  Members of the House of Representatives and Senate trade prepackaged partisan barbs to empty chambers. 


“Congress is changing as an institution, and what you see is more and more members gearing their speeches as sound bites or YouTube clips,” said Lee Drutman, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Sunlight Foundation.  [3]


What happened to the institution where, “members quoted Shakespeare on the floor and really engaged in debate and talked to each other and tried to reason back and forth?” [4]


Blame the size and complexity of the Federal Government.


The conflict between legislative business occurring at center stage versus behind the scenes started in the Continental Congress.  Even during the formative stages of America, there were committees that met away from the Chamber to prepare legislation for consideration.


These committees were temporary in nature.  Ad hoc committees were established within the House and Senate for a particular purpose and ended when they completed their task.  Selecting committee membership was a function of the entire body.  Committee members were usually the sponsors of specific bills and resolutions. These temporary committees were formed with one week deadlines for reporting back to the parent chamber.  Members of the House and Senate actually spent the majority of their time collectively in the “committee of the whole” to conduct legislative business. [5]


The first permanent, or “standing committee”, was the House’s Committee on Ways and Means in 1801. It took until 1816 before the Senate created its first standing committees.  Even with standing committees; committee chairs and members acted as limited adjuncts to the full House and Senate. [6]


The rise of Andrew Jackson and “Jacksonian Democrats” ushered in modern political parties. 


Partisan alignments seeped into the workings of the Legislative Branch.  By 1846 Members began to sit together in the Senate chamber according to party affiliation.  That same year saw the shift to committee assignments based upon recommendations of political party caucuses. [7]


Even with the rise of partisanship and standing committees, legislation was primarily handled by Members conducting learned debate in Chambers packed with colleagues and the public.


Congressional debates mattered and the future of America was being discussed and shaped every day the House and Senate were in session. The leaders of Washington society eagerly attended these sessions. The public filled the Senate’s “Ladies’ Gallery” and even sat on couches along the walls of the Senate Floor. [8]


America was growing and the strategic issue of slavery expanding westward dominated legislative debate. The issues were large and larger than life political leaders rose to voice concerns on behalf of the various regions of the United States.


The years 1810 through 1859, were a period known as the “Golden Age” of the Senate.  During this time three of the greatest senators and orators in American history served there: Henry Clay (Kentucky) articulating the views and concerns of the West, Daniel Webster (Massachusetts) representing the North, and John C. Calhoun (South Carolina) representing the South.


During these years America’s political leaders debated and resolved major issues on the Floors of the House and Senate.  These included the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the nullification debate of 1830 (Haynes-Webster debates), and the Compromise of1850. “Washington's elite gathered to watch the impassioned oratory and the great compromises that took place in this Chamber.” [9]


”On any given day, you’d find most of the senators at their desks in the chamber … writing, listening, debating, laughing, sleeping, franking mail. They were all present. No doubt, this was conducive to debate and resulted in some great discussions and arguments. The crowded Chamber also provided a great show for the visitors in the gallery.” [10]


There was power in oratory. The debates among Clay, Webster, Calhoun, and others mattered. These debates over America’s future became touch stones of our nation’s civic culture. For example, Daniel Webster’s speeches were so famous, “that his reply “Liberty and Union, now and forever, one and inseparable!” to Senator Robert Hayne in a debate in 1830 was memorized by schoolboys and was on the lips of Northern soldiers as they charged forward in the Civil War.” [11]


The “Golden Age” made the House and Senate Chambers center stage in the Legislative Branch and in the nation. However, other forces were at work to pull power and attention away from this national forum.


Government was growing slowly, but incessantly. By 1856 the complexities of government, and its legislation, required major committees to hire clerical staff. For another fifty years House and Senate Members made do with cramped quarters in the ever expanding Capitol Building. The House of Representatives met in its new chamber on December 16, 1857, and the Senate first met in its new chamber on January 4, 1859. [12] During this time Members attended full sessions of the House and Senate in part because there was no other place for them to work. [13]


This fundamentally changed in the 20th Century. The Russell Senate Office Building opened in 1909.


The Cannon House Office Building opened in 1908. Members began to spend more time in their offices or attending committee meetings. The role of the House and Senate Chambers diminished to a place for voting instead of debating. Eventually, six office buildings would be filled with Members and their staffs.


Another blow to the stature of Chamber debate was the surge in executive branch activism under the Progressives (Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson), Democrats (Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson), and ultimately Presidents of both parties.


Big government forever changed the role of the Legislative Branch. Members had to confront more than legislation. Their offices became “mini-embassies” representing and advising their constituents on navigating the ever growing morass of government programs and agencies.


Members soon realized that power resided in minutiae rather than big issues. By specializing in niche issues and becoming experts on micro-matters they became brokers for legislative processes.


Unblocking choke points meant cutting deals with their colleagues and special interests. Members helping district and special interests to navigate the increasingly complex government labyrinth were rewarded with votes and donations. The road to power and riches ceased to be in front of the scenes, and settled into the dark recesses behind the scenes.


Efforts were made to reverse this undemocratic trend. In 1946, Congress tried to winnow down and streamline the hundreds of committees that blossomed during the New Deal and World War II. [14] Instead, The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 expanded staffs and institutionalized Member focus away from Floor debate. [15]


The number of committee meetings grew as government grew. During the 85th Congress (1957-1958) there were 3,750 House meetings and 2,748 Senate meetings.  By the 95th Congress (1977-1978) it was 7,896 House meetings and 3,960 Senate meetings. [16] Members had to pick and choose which meetings to attend, trading time for their staff, constituents, lobbyists, and donors.  Hearing rooms became just as empty as their parent Chamber.


Social media and fundraising have joined the competition for Members’ over stretched attention.  Lost in this cacophony is Jefferson’s ideal of civil discourse.  The towering figures of the Golden Age are now just names on statues that Members pass on their way to Chambers where they quickly vote and leave.


[Scot Faulkner served as the first Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives.]


FOOTNOTES
[1] http://www.pbs.org/kenburns/congress/educators/
[2] Richard Chenowerth, “The Most Beautiful Room in the World; Latrobe, Jefferson, and the First Capitol”; The Capitol Dome, Fall 2014; p. 24-39.
[3] http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/22/news/la-pn-study-congress-sounding-increasingly-like-teenagers-20120521
[4] Ibid
[5] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Committees.htm
[6] “The Committee System.” Boundless Political Science. Boundless, 25 Jan. 2015. https://www.boundless.com/political-science/textbooks/boundless-political-science-textbook/congress-11/organization-of-congress-77/the-committee-system-426-4995/ 
[7] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_John_Calhoun.htm
[8] http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/VP_Daniel_Tompkins.htm
[9] http://www.clotureclub.com/2012/10/old-senate-chamber-history-and-facts/
[10] Betty K. Koed; “The Ten Most Important Things to Know About the U.S. Senate”; United States Senate Historical Office. http://www.dirksencenter.org/print_expert_tenthingssenate.htm
[11] Craig R. Smith, “Daniel Webster and the Oratory of Civil Religion”; January 30, 2005; University of Missouri Press.
[12] http://www.aoc.gov/history-us-capitol-building
[13] Joanna Hallac; “Old Senate Chamber” https://uschs.wordpress.com/tag/dr-william-thornton/
[14] The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 (PL 601 79th Congress); https://bulk.resource.org/gao.gov/79-601/00001E13.pdf
[15] George B. Galloway; “The Operation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946”; The American Political Science Review, Vol. 45, No. 1, (Mar., 1951), pp. 41-68 American Political Science Association; page 56; http://people.brandeis.edu/~woll/gallowaylegreorgact46.pdf
[16] Norman J. Ornstein, Thomas E. Mann, Michael J. Malbin, Andrew Rugg and Raffaela Wakeman Vital Statistics on Congress Data on the U.S. Congress – A Joint Effort from Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute ; July 2013 http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/07/vital-statistics-congress-mann-ornstein

INVITATION ONLY

Also published on https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/invitation-only-scot-faulkner?trk=prof-post

How can the new Republican Congress signal that they are the co-equal branch of government? How can Republicans avoid being out maneuvered by President Obama?


It’s time to NOT invite President Obama to give his State of the Union Address before Congress. This is a clear and simple way Republicans can, in one master stroke, register their opposition to Obama’s Executive Orders and realign the balance between the Legislative and Executive Branches.
There is no official reason for the speech. There is not even a requirement for it to be annual. Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution only requires the President to “from time to time give to the Congress information of the State of the Union”.


There is also no requirement that Congress grant the President the use of their Chamber for this ritualized infomercial.


On January 16, 2014, Rep. Eric Cantor sponsored H.Con.Res.75 authorizing “That the two Houses of Congress assemble in the Hall of the House of Representatives on Tuesday, January 28, 2014, at 9 p.m., for the purpose of receiving such communication as the President of the United States shall be pleased to make to them.” What if, in January 2015, no one sponsored a Concurrent Resolution or voted for it?


Republicans would prove that the Congress is a co-equal branch, not subservient to the President. They would not become a pack of trained seals clapping at dozens of cheap applause lines. They would not be the stage set for Obama's grandstanding to the nation and helping the media continue their “Obama is on the rebound” narrative.

They would also avoid being put in multiple political binds as the President introduces controversial people, daring the Republicans not to applaud. This may include Michael Brown’s and Eric Garner’s parents sitting next to the First Lady. Obama might even introduce Al Sharpton or some newly pardoned illegal aliens from his VIP delegation in the Chamber’s balcony.


Not inviting the President also brings the State of the Union back to its traditional position in American government.


President George Washington delivered the first State of the Union speech in person before a Joint Session of Congress on January 8, 1790. Since then, there have been 223 opportunities for Presidents to deliver their report. Presidents have delivered their report as a speech before a Joint Session of Congress only 98 times (44%). The other 125 times were through written communication.
George Washington and John Adams delivered their State of the Union reports as speeches, but Thomas Jefferson was more comfortable with the written word. For 113 years, no other President delivered a State of the Union speech until Democrat Woodrow Wilson on December 2, 1913. President Warren Harding continued this new practice as did Calvin Coolidge, once.


For ten years, Congress did not have to arrange a Joint Session for the State of the Union Address. Then Democrat Franklin Roosevelt asked for the forum in 1934. In 1946, President Harry Truman opted out of a formal speech because, during the previous nine months, he had spoken to five Joint Sessions of Congress relating to the end of World War II. In 1956, President Eisenhower opted out of the speech because he was still recovering from his September 24, 1955 heart attack.


No one really missed the Presidential vanity hour. Twenty six Presidents, including two of America’s greatest Presidential orators, Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, choose not to speak to the Congress. Congress still operated. Legislative business continued.


Presidents issue a detailed Budget Message a few weeks after the State of the Union Report. This is a more tangible and actionable communication of the Administration’s priorities. Far more budget initiatives become reality than the dozens of empty promises made in a State of the Union address.
Congressional Republicans have an historic opportunity to reinvent government in the 21st Century.


They can start by ending this annual narcissistic charade, which promotes the image of a dominant Executive Branch. Let the President speak from the Oval Office - that would more than meet the Constitutional requirement.


[Scot Faulkner served as Chief Administrative Officer of the U.S. House of Representatives and on President Reagan’s White House Staff]

Jefferson's Valedictory

Published as part of Constituting America's "constitution reader" series

"90 in 90: History Holds The Key to the Future" in cooperation with Hillsdale College.

http://www.constitutingamerica.org/blog/blog/2013/03/11/tuesday-march-12-2013-essay-17-letter-to-roger-weightman-thomas-jefferson-guest-essayist-scot-faulkner-co-founder-george-washington-institute-of-living-e/

My podcast for Constituting America http://soundcloud.com/constituting-america/essay-17

Tuesday, March 12, 2013 – Essay #17 – Letter to Roger Weightman – Thomas Jefferson – Guest Essayist – Scot Faulkner, Co-Founder, George Washington Institute of Living Ethics, Shepherd University

In the last public communication of his life, Thomas Jefferson made it crystal clear why documents and actions have lasting consequences. In his letter to Washington, DC Mayor, Roger C. Weightman, Jefferson eloquently asserts the legacy of the Declaration of Independence by declaring it: “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains under which monkish ignorance and superstition had persuaded them to bind themselves, and to assume the blessings and security of self-government.”

Jefferson was a student of history. He understood its central role in our present and future. Earlier he wrote: “History, by apprising them of the past will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views.”[1]

On June 24, 1826, Jefferson knew he was dying. His ailments had been slowing him down since the beginning of the year. He hoped to communicate a timeless legacy of liberty to others. He also hoped to survive until July 4, the fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. On that June morning he had summoned Dr. Robley Dunglison to help him live just a few more days and then to ease his journey to, “the shore which crowns all my hopes or which buries my cares.” [2] He then completed his letter to Weightman.

Mayor Weightman had invited all surviving signers of the Declaration of Independence to a major celebration in Washington, DC. Jefferson knew his infirmities would prevent his attending, but he viewed responding to Weightman’s invitation as a valedictory – a final farewell to inspire people to seek freedom for ages to come.

Jefferson opens by making his apology for not being able to attend. He then frames the fiftieth commemoration of the Declaration of Independence as vindicating the actions of the signers in 1776: “the remnant of that host of worthies, who joined with us, on that day, in the bold and doubtful election we were to make for our country, between submission or the sword; and to have enjoyed with them the consolatory fact, that our fellow citizens, after half a century of experience and prosperity, continue to approve the choice we made.”

He shifts his focus to the broader themes of July 4th. He affirms the eternal value and inspirational message of the Declaration of Independence as, “the signal of arousing men to burst the chains.” Jefferson then writes about the how the Declaration not only launched the first successful revolution based solely on freedom, but also established timeless values for creating a noble new civic culture, “That form which we have substituted, restores the free right to the unbounded exercise of reason and freedom of opinion.”

He goes on to describe the universal impact of the Declaration, “All eyes are opened, or opening, to the rights of man.” Jefferson deeply desired that an expanding universe of freedom and knowledge would lift everyone on earth out of tyranny, “The general spread of the light of science has already laid open to every view the palpable truth, that the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred, ready to ride them legitimately, by the grace of God. These are grounds of hope for others.”

Jefferson closes with a recommendation for the ages, “For ourselves, let the annual return of this day forever refresh our recollections of these rights, and an undiminished devotion to them.”

As Jefferson envisioned, July 4 should always be about more than parades, fireworks, and barbeques. It is about refreshing our recollections of our freedom being “self evident” and our “unalienable Rights” arising from our “Creator” never to be abridged by any earthly power. The sole role of government is to “secure these rights,” deriving its just power, “from the consent of the governed”.

Jefferson lived to see the sunrise on America’s fiftieth birthday, passing just before one o’clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, July 4, 1826. Later that day, Jefferson’s colleague and co-author of the Declaration of Independence, John Adams, also passed. Adams’ last words were, “Thomas Jefferson lives”. And so he does.

[1] Meacham, Jon Thomas Jefferson; The Art of Power. New York, NY Random House 2012. Page 537.
[2] Ibid. p. 492.

Despensable Men

The culture of power unfortunately attracts more of those wishing to abuse the system than those wishing to use it for the common good. Governor Spitzer is just the latest in a long series of officials whose fantasies of sex and power collided with reality. He will not be the last. Future Spitzers, Craigs, and Clintons already believe they are more clever, more careful, or more indispensable to avoid the consequences of their actions.

New York Governor Elliott Spitzer has had his political day of reckoning; his legal reckoning still awaits. At least he did the right thing on Wednesday by resigning. In so doing he spared his family a media circus and allowed state government to return to normalcy. Many others have also pulled the ripcord when confronted with similar charges – Governor James McGreevey, Congressmen Bob Livingston and Mark Foley, and Senator Gary Hart. Others choose to remain in office hoping to outlast the public’s interest or ire – President Bill Clinton, Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senators David Vitter and Larry Craig, and Congressman William Jefferson.

We are still left wondering why these “falls from grace” happen with such regularity. Spitzer’s own words provide some insight, “From those to whom much is given, much is expected”. Even in his moment of public atonement, Governor Spitzer could not resist elevating himself above the rest of us mere mortals.

Everyone who is married, regardless of position in life, is bound to be honest and trustworthy to their spouse. Every employee, regardless of employment, is duty bound to keep their mind focused on their job while at work.

Governor Spitzer’s lapse into aggrandizement gives us a glimpse into his psyche. It links his situation to all the others. Powerful men are quick to believe their own media releases and create a false reality in which they are indispensable to their nation, their state, their community, their church, or their corporation. Being so indispensable allows them to move to a new plane of existence where they can do anything they want and get away with whatever they want because they are so vital to the future of others.

Citizens and the media need to make sure that we avoid falling for the manufactured mystique that surrounds politicians. They are just like us. They need to be treated like the rest of us. There should never be a moratorium on morals, ethics, or the law - no matter how important someone thinks they are.