The History Book Club discussion

This is the thread for the discussion of FEDERALIST. NO 4.

This paper is titled CONCERNING DANGERS FROM FOREIGN FORCE AND INFLUENCE (cont'd).

This paper was written by John Jay.

by Alexander Hamilton

This is Federalist number 4 week:

FEDERALIST PAPER No. 4
Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't) (John Jay)

November 9 - November 15 (page 40)

In Federalist Paper number 4 - Concerning Dangers From Foreign Force and Influence (con't) (John Jay):

* Federalist No. 4 is an essay by John Jay, the fourth of the Federalist Papers. It was published on November 7, 1787 under the pseudonym Publius, the name under which all the Federalist Papers were published. It is the third of four essays by Jay discussing the protection of the United States from dangerous foreign influence, especially military force. It is titled, "The Same Subject Continued: Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence."

* Jay argues that a singular government speaking for all states would serve as a greater deterrent to military interference by foreign nations than a system of government where each state is given complete control over its affairs.

John Jay believes that one Union would react better than many states with their own governments. For example, with one body speaking for the nation there would be no arguments over troop placements or treaties.

Furthermore a singular army and navy appears a much less inviting target to invaders than the individual army of a one state by itself.

Suppose if this one state were to be attacked, who's to say whether the other states would respond? With a single government that problem would be avoided.

Source - Wikipedia



John Jay writes the following articles: 5 articles: 2–5 and 64).

In the first sentence, John Jay summarizes what he was trying to accomplish in Federal Paper number 3 at the beginning of 4:

MY LAST paper assigned several reasons why the safety of the people
would be best secured by union against the danger it may be exposed to
by JUST causes of war given to other nations; and those reasons show
that such causes would not only be more rarely given, but would also be
more easily accommodated, by a national government than either by the
State governments or the proposed little confederacies.

But in the next sentence Jay jumps right into the fray and basically says that defense is one thing; but we cannot be out looking for trouble either.

But the safety of the people of America against dangers from FOREIGN
force depends not only on their forbearing to give JUST causes of war to
other nations, but also on their placing and continuing themselves in
such a situation as not to INVITE hostility or insult; for it need not
be observed that there are PRETENDED as well as just causes of war.

Has the United States maintained this air of neutrality? Have we listened to our founding fathers in not getting involved with foreign entanglements? Have we placed ourselves in any situations where we have invited hostility or insult? Or has that come about through no fault of policy? And what did folks think about the last part of Jay's arguments that there are "pretended as well as just causes of war"?

I thought he had some interesting advice.

Bentley

Jay continues to make a lot of sense in Federalist Paper Four:

He states as follows:

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that
nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of
getting anything by it; nay, absolute monarchs will often make war when
their nations are to get nothing by it, but for the purposes and objects
merely personal, such as thirst for military glory, revenge for personal
affronts, ambition, or private compacts to aggrandize or support their
particular families or partisans. These and a variety of other motives,
which affect only the mind of the sovereign, often lead him to engage in
wars not sanctified by justice or the voice and interests of his people.
But, independent of these inducements to war, which are more prevalent
in absolute monarchies, but which well deserve our attention, there are
others which affect nations as often as kings; and some of them will on
examination be found to grow out of our relative situation and
circumstances.

Discussion Topics:

If one rereads the bolded area above; were any of these reasons why we got into the Iraqi War? Were the reasons sanctified by justice and in the best interests of the people? What other wars did not follow this formula? Do you think they could have been avoided? Were we inviting hostility or insult? Were there pretended causes of war versus just causes? Curious as to how folks feel about this excerpt in terms of the history which passed from the writing of this paper until now.

Federalist Paper #4:

These seem to be Jay's new arguments in FP #4:

One government can collect and avail itself of the talents and
experience of the ablest men, in whatever part of the Union they may be
found. It can move on uniform principles of policy. It can harmonize,
assimilate, and protect the several parts and members, and extend the
benefit of its foresight and precautions to each. In the formation of
treaties, it will regard the interest of the whole, and the particular
interests of the parts as connected with that of the whole. It can apply
the resources and power of the whole to the defense of any particular
part, and that more easily and expeditiously than State governments or
separate confederacies can possibly do, for want of concert and unity of
system. It can place the militia under one plan of discipline, and, by
putting their officers in a proper line of subordination to the Chief
Magistrate, will, as it were, consolidate them into one corps, and
thereby render them more efficient than if divided into thirteen or into
three or four distinct independent companies.

Discussion Topic:

Do you think the above are solid arguments? Why and/or why not?

I think Jay makes an excellent argument that if we are divided that each entity would really be out for itself rather than the others. It is the unity that really builds the strength and the respect from other countries who might seek to divide us and then maybe conquer us yet again.

Jay's last line is fairly powerful:

How liable would she become not only to their contempt but to their outrage, and how soon would dear-bought experience proclaim that when a people or family so divide, it never fails to be against themselves.

It would be that division that would make the 13 colonies fail at the hands of its enemies.

Discussion Topic:

How reasonable are Jay's arguments?

Federalism: Crash Course Government and Politics #4

This is a comedic representation:

In which Craig Benzine teaches you about federalism, or the idea that in the United States, power is divided between the national government and the 50 state governments. Craig will teach you about how federalism has evolved over the history of the US, and what powers are given to the federal government, and what stuff the states control on their own. And he punches an eagle, which may not surprise you at all.

The Commerce Clause:

Link:

Source: PBS, Youtube

Don't throw these out if you find them in the trash?

Pawn Stars: Hamilton's Federalist Papers, 1802 Second Edition (Season 14) | History

Rick and Rebecca get excited when second edition printings of both parts of Hamilton's Federalist Papers essay collection are brought into the store in this clip from "Gilded Pawn Age

Link:

Source: History

Video #4, Federalists, Anti Federalists, The Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights



Source: Youtube and Adam Norris

Ben Shapiro on Federalism 4:



Source: Youtube

The Constitution, the Articles and the Federalism:

Comedic Representation:



Source: Crash Course, Youtube

Absolutely Excellent

A Conversation on the Constitution: Judicial Interpretation Part 1 - Volume 1

Justices Stephen G. Breyer and Antonin Scalia and a group of students discuss the different theories of how to interpret and apply the Constitution to cases. Of course our Federalist essayists are discussed.

Breyer offered a way that Justices are protecting the boundaries of the Constitution - they are the border patrol - patrolling the borders of the Constitution. He thinks that a judge has six tools to look at.

a) Text - The judge reads the words - do the words matter - of course and he reads other nearby words

b) History - He looks at the history

c) Traditions - What are the traditions surrounding this word that have grown up.

d) Precedent - Read the precedent

e) Purpose or Values - Look at the purpose and that is when we are talking about purpose or value

f) Consequences - Look at the consequences of deciding one way or the other - not any old consequence in the world but consequences that have to do with the purpose if it's a speech case - its speech consequences that matter - a privacy case - it would be unreasonable search - and the privacy unreasonable search consequences

Link:

A Conversation on the Constitution: Judicial Interpretation Part 1 Volume 2 (cont'd)

Scalia makes a good point about politicizing judges. However, it is odd that he became the lightning rod for conservatives. But he makes a good point that this is a fear. Breyer says that he does not start out with a point of view - he starts out with a case and they are trying to find the right answer to the case - and Breyer goes on to say that we have a Constitution that was designed particularly after the Civil War to protect the individual rights of unpopular people and he said think of Brown v. Board of Education itself - he challenges Scalia's thinking and brilliantly in return. Breyer makes a great point about the Constitution and being reflective - he states that "we are a nation under law and that means we will decide things through reason under law rather than fighting each other in the streets. I've never heard a voice raised in anger really in that conference room or people making insulting remarks about each other. We resolve our differences where they are great and sometimes they are by listening and speaking
in a reasonable way and if I am not going to convince somebody that way - I'm certainly not going to convince them by raising my voice but that's the system the Constitution sets up and I'm glad that it does."



Link: Youtube, Selective Videos

Just as an FYI:

As I discover interesting videos or podcasts; articles, etc. And even courses - I will post them on the respective thread as well as in the glossary.

They are meant as background material on the essayist, the papers themselves, the Constitution, Bill of Rights, the Articles of Confederation or a host of other ancillary information about the period.

Additionally we may add cases which deal with the essayist as in the case of Jay or deal with the Federalist papers in some way.

If you have any questions about them, do not be afraid to post and ask.

Also, please feel free to comment on any or all.

It is interesting to think about the audience Jay is writing for. First thought is probably the Anti-Federalists but I don't think so. Jay is talking about a strong army for national defense but creating a standing army is one of the very things the Anti-Federalists were worried about. Too much power in the hands of the national government. Jay was also concerned about supporting international trade but with their local focus, the Anti Federalists would not consider that a significant concern. They would probably say that risk was a cost of doing business and should be figured into pricing on a free market.

Probably Jay's target audience were the undecided. Imagine all these essays being written and published just to attract the swing voters in a close campaign. That's a lot of effort to marshall a few votes. And a lot of dedication to a new government that hasn't been tried yet.

Jeffrey T. (added post hoc just for clarity)

Jeffrey, that is a very interesting thought about who the audience really was. Jay was a complex individual. He had negotiated many foreign treaties so he did have international experience.

Very interesting post.

Let's return for a moment, to the interesting discussion of Indian affairs. As we may recall, Jay had cited the various problems leading to the many Indian wars in the various states and opined that having a consistent Federal policy was the best way to avoid confrontations. The Articles of Confederation had already delegated sole responsibility for Indian affairs to the Federal Congress. Here is the relevant section of Article IX:

copied from

"The united states in congress assembled shall also have the sole and exclusive right and power of ... regulating the trade and managing all affairs with the Indians, not members of any of the states, provided that the legislative right of any state within its own limits be not infringed or violated"

In week three, message 35 Connie wrote, citing an article in flashpoint magazine by Robert J. Miller which can be found at:


"However, this Congress’ power in Indian affairs was limited because the Articles of Confederation did not clearly give this Congress the exclusive power to deal with tribes."

While the Miller article appears otherwise sound I think we should note that Congress did not entirely agree with Miller's assessment.

The exception quoted above from the Articles really does not seem clear to a present day reader. However toward the end of the Confederation era Congress did issue the Proclamation of 1783, dated September 22 which reads:

"The Proclamation prohibits:

all persons from making settlements on lands inhabited or claimed by Indians, without the limits or jurisdiction of any particular State, and from purchasing or receiving any gift or cession of such lands or claims without the express authority and directions of the United States in Congress assembled.[1]

The Proclamation also declared:

that every very such purchase or settlement, gift or cession, not having the authority aforesaid, is null and void, and that no right or title will accrue in consequence of any such purchase, gift, cession or settlement.[1]"

Source:



So it seems clear that at the time Jay was writing Federalist three and four, the Confederation Congress was claiming the authority to invalidate any land claims issued by any of the several states for land outside their own jurisdiction unless they also had the approval of the Federal Congress.

The only vagueness may concern western land claims to unincorporated territory such as Georgia's claim to what is now Alabama and Mississippi. Georgia was issuing land grants to areas that had not been surveyed and had not been incorporated into it's 24 counties. The claims were based upon the original colony charter issued by the British Crown. That doesn't seem like strong title after the revolution; Georgia however, did not cede those claims to the Federal government until 1802.

Miller talks about the exclusive power to deal with Indian affairs and Jay may be read to imply he was referring to exclusive powers but never says so. There really was a good substantive issue that was being neglected by Jay. Since Indians residing within the jurisdiction of the several states were not citizens, is it clear that the states had any rights to govern them or make treaties with them? Were the children of an Indian and an American parent, Indians or Americans or both?

It does seem that a lot of policy assumptions were lurking in the policy decisions that were in play at the time the Constitution was being written. (Alexander McGillivary was the principle chief of the Upper Creeks from 1782 was of mixed race.)

Jeffrey T.

Re. question in comment #4Bentley wrote: "were any of these reasons why we got into the Iraqi War? Were the reasons sanctified by justice and in the best interests of the people? What other wars did not follow this formula? Do you think they could have been avoided? Were we inviting hostility or insult? Were there pretended causes of war versus just causes? Curious as to how folks feel about this excerpt in terms of the history which passed from the writing of this paper until now. ."

I'm sure I'm not alone in believing that our invasion of Iraq was carried out for reasons other than were stated publicly, possibly as revenge for an attempted assassination of Bush 41 or, more likely, in hopes of obtaining access to their oil. It was obvious at the outset that there was no link whatsoever to the attacks on 9/11.

That said, I will move on to the second part of your question and nominate my favorite war (from a historian's POV) as a candidate. I have long been fascinated by the war between the United States and Mexico. It has everything. brilliant tactics, heroic action, political intrigue, future hall-of-famers playing as rookies, tragedy and more. Why we got into it though was avarice, plain and simple. Avarice and hubris born of belief in the principle of Manifest Destiny. we wanted a nation that spread from sea to shining sea and the only thing that stood between us and our goal was Mexico, a backwater country with more revolutions per minute than an LP (that's 33 1/3 for the millennials in the audience) .

You have lots of interesting information, Jeffrey T. (message 16).

According to Sparknotes, concerning the Articles of Confederation, Article 9 about the powers of Congress (on page 2 of 3):
"Closely related to boundary disputes, but conspicuously absent from the Articles of Confederation, is whether Congress had the authority to acquire and administer land claimed by multiple parties. As the single most divisive issue facing the Congress when they drafted the Articles, it also served to delay Maryland's ratification, thereby delaying the Articles being put into effect, by four years."

Since Congress did not have the power to tax and had little money in the Treasury, soldiers in the Revolutionary War were paid in land by the states. The Sparknotes article discusses the burden on the small states without much extra land, land speculators who bought land from the Indians, and disputes about who owned the land. There was quite a bit of land that was claimed by multiple parties--Indians, individuals, and/or states.

I don't see the thread for week five?

I am getting it ready Jeffrey. (smile). It is coming.

I had one thought that I'd like to bring up. Jay mentioned several times the idea of having multiple confederacies and each time he referred to three of four. It occurred to me that at this juncture, our nation could have very easily ended up as two confederacies with the views on slavery being the dividing factor. A lot of speculative novels have been written on what life would be like had the Confederacy had won the Civil War but it seems that what I'm suggesting had a better likelihood of occurring. I'm curious to know people's thoughts as to what would have ensued if it had.

Tom that is true but remember the North was the processing and manufacturing arm of the South for cotton - they were tied to together and cotton in those days meant slavery (later prior to the Civil War). It is hard for us to fathom but people in those times did not think it was horrible to have slaves as we all do today. A human being being chattel is foreign to most of us in the western world - although slavery still exists in this world as horrible as it is to all of us. Our founding fathers had slaves and they were good men but they still had slaves.

I wonder if the dividing factor would have been slavery or something else - way of life, religion, the wild west, or even by state as awful as that would have been.

But it would be nice to hear from others Tom and what their views might be. But the what if's are quite numerous.

I think what you might have had at the time that these essays were being written - were divisions between the rural folks versus some of the founding fathers - the federalist view versus the anti federalist view.

Bentley wrote: "Tom that is true but remember the North was the processing and manufacturing arm of the South for cotton - they were tied to together and cotton in those days meant slavery (later prior to the Civi..."

When Jay speaks of confederacies number 3 or 4 I am thinking they were aware of some divisions that we may not be aware of today. Slavery would have likely only accounted for two regions; north and south. I am sure we do not have a record of every word and topic spoken in debate. I may make for the basis of a great alternative history novel.

Slavery was an issue from day one of the new nation. There were many in the new government that wanted to abolish slavery as they were founding the nation. Many of the slave holders who were open to freeing their slaves. Many of them did in fact free their slaves but we do not hear much about them and they continue to be colored by the fact that they were slaveholders at one time.

They were afraid that the slavery issue would kill the new nation before it was even birthed. What would have happened if they had emancipated the slaves at the beginning? Would they have been able to work together to resolve the issue better than in the 1860's? Our would our revolution have been immediately followed by the delayed civil war? Was the civil war inevitable? Were these some of the things Jay was thinking pen in hand as he wrote his share of the federalist papers?

As Bentley said slavery is alive and well today in multiple forms. Even our smallest communities in good ole North America are affected. Something to keep in mind as we consider the discussions around our constitution and how it might apply today.

April 30, 1789: First Inaugural Address - President George Washington

Transcript:

Fellow Citizens of the Senate and the House of Representatives:

Among the vicissitudes incident to life, no event could have filled me with greater anxieties than that of which the notification was transmitted by your order, and received on the fourteenth day of the present month. On the one hand, I was summoned by my Country, whose voice I can never hear but with veneration and love, from a retreat which I had chosen with the fondest predilection, and, in my flattering hopes, with an immutable decision, as the asylum of my declining years: a retreat which was rendered every day more necessary as well as more dear to me, by the addition of habit to inclination, and of frequent interruptions in my health to the gradual waste committed on it by time. On the other hand, the magnitude and difficulty of the trust to which the voice of my Country called me, being sufficient to awaken in the wisest and most experienced of her citizens, a distrustful scrutiny into his qualification, could not but overwhelm with dispondence, one, who, inheriting inferior endowments from nature and unpractised in the duties of civil administration, ought to be peculiarly conscious of his own deficencies. In this conflict of emotions, all I dare aver, is, that it has been my faithful study to collect my duty from a just appreciation of every circumstance, by which it might be affected. All I dare hope, is, that, if in executing this task I have been too much swayed by a grateful remembrance of former instances, or by an affectionate sensibility to this transcendent proof, of the confidence of my fellow-citizens; and have thence too little consulted my incapacity as well as disinclination for the weighty and untried cares before me; my error will be palliated by the motives which misled me, and its consequences be judged by my Country, with some share of the partiality in which they originated.

Such being the impressions under which I have, in obedience to the public summons, repaired to the present station; it would be peculiarly improper to omit in this first official Act, my fervent supplications to that Almighty Being who rules over the Universe, who presides in the Councils of Nations, and whose providential aids can supply every human defect, that his benediction may consecrate to the liberties and happiness of the People of the United States, a Government instituted by themselves for these essential purposes: and may enable every instrument employed in its administration to execute with success, the functions allotted to his charge. In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own; nor those of my fellow-citizens at large, less than either. No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.

And in the important revolution just accomplished in the system of their United Government, the tranquil deliberations and voluntary consent of so many distinct communities, from which the event has resulted, cannot be compared with the means by which most Governments have been established, without some return of pious gratitude along with an humble anticipation of the future blessings which the past seem to presage.

These reflections, arising out of the present crisis, have forced themselves too strongly on my mind to be suppressed. You will join with me I trust in thinking, that there are none under the influence of which, the proceedings of a new and free Government can more auspiciously commence.

By the article establishing the Executive Department, it is made the duty of the President "to recommend to your consideration, such measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient."

The circumstances under which I now meet you, will acquit me from entering into that subject, farther than to refer to the Great Constitutional Charter under which you are assembled; and which, in defining your powers, designates the objects to which your attention is to be given.

It will be more consistent with those circumstances, and far more congenial with the feelings which actuate me, to substitute, in place of a recommendation of particular measures, the tribute that is due to the talents, the rectitude, and the patriotism which adorn the characters selected to devise and adopt them. In these honorable qualifications, I behold the surest pledges, that as on one side, no local prejudices, or attachments; no seperate views, nor party animosities, will misdirect the comprehensive and equal eye which ought to watch over this great assemblage of communities and interests: so, on another, that the foundations of our National policy will be laid in the pure and immutable principles of private morality; and the pre-eminence of a free Government, be exemplified by all the attributes which can win the affections of its Citizens, and command the respect of the world.

I dwell on this prospect with every satisfaction which an ardent love for my Country can inspire: since there is no truth more thoroughly established, than that there exists in the economy and course of nature, an indissoluble union between virtue and happiness, between duty and advantage, between the genuine maxims of an honest and magnanimous policy, and the solid rewards of public prosperity and felicity: Since we ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven, can never be expected on a nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right, which Heaven itself has ordained: And since the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty, and the destiny of the Republican model of Government, are justly considered as deeply, perhaps as finally staked, on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people.

Besides the ordinary objects submitted to your care, it will remain with your judgment to decide, how far an exercise of the occasional power delegated by the Fifth article of the Constitution is rendered expedient at the present juncture by the nature of objections which have been urged against the System, or by the degree of inquietude which has given birth to them.

Instead of undertaking particular recommendations on this subject, in which I could be guided by no lights derived from official opportunities, I shall again give way to my entire confidence in your discernment and pursuit of the public good: For I assure myself that whilst you carefully avoid every alteration which might endanger the benefits of an United and effective Government, or which ought to await the future lessons of experience; a reverence for the characteristic rights of freemen, and a regard for the public harmony, will sufficiently influence your deliberations on the question how far the former can be more impregnably fortified, or the latter be safely and advantageously promoted.

To the preceeding observations I have one to add, which will be most properly addressed to the House of Representatives. It concerns myself, and will therefore be as brief as possible. When I was first honoured with a call into the Service of my Country, then on the eve of an arduous struggle for its liberties, the light in which I contemplated my duty required that I should renounce every pecuniary compensation. From this resolution I have in no instance departed.

And being still under the impressions which produced it, I must decline as inapplicable to myself, any share in the personal emoluments, which may be indispensably included in a permanent provision for the Executive Department; and must accordingly pray that the pecuniary estimates for the Station in which I am placed, may, during my continuance in it, be limited to such actual expenditures as the public good may be thought to require.

Having thus imparted to you my sentiments, as they have been awakened by the occasion which brings us together, I shall take my present leave; but not without resorting once more to the benign parent of the human race, in humble supplication that since he has been pleased to favour the American people, with opportunities for deliberating in perfect tranquility, and dispositions for deciding with unparellelled unanimity on a form of Government, for the security of their Union, and the advancement of their happiness; so his divine blessing may be equally conspicuous in the enlarged views, the temperate consultations, and the wise measures on which the success of this Government must depend.

About this speech
April 30, 1789

Source: Miller Center

Washington calls on Congress to avoid local and party partisanship and encourages the adoption of a Bill of Rights, without specifically calling them by name.

The first President demonstrates his reluctance to accept the post, rejects any salary for the execution of his duties, and devotes a considerable part of the speech to his religious beliefs.

Thank you so much for the thoughtful, detailed postings.

Bentley wrote: "Jay continues to make a lot of sense in Federalist Paper Four:

He states as follows:

It is too true, however disgraceful it may be to human nature, that
nations in general will make war whenever ..."

Hi Bentley

So I just note that Jay's "that nations in general will make war whenever they have a prospect of getting anything by it" - seems to be ignored - did he think that was true? do you? it certainly however reinforces the notion of needing the strength of being united.

But I do agree about monarchs and those with egos and power (did you ever work for a owner? - much different than a large corporate structure) and just continuing on this point I agree with Tom (msg 17) that Geo W Bush was looking from the very beginning for striking back again Saddam as a result of the attempt of his father's life........ (we now have a commander in chief who seems also to need ego building and got it in a bullying way off the wealth of his father to begin and now can use the wealth and power of all of us. - is this too political?)

Bentley wrote: "Tom that is true but remember the North was the processing and manufacturing arm of the South for cotton - they were tied to together and cotton in those days meant slavery (later prior to the Civi..."


I have to agree with Bentley here Tom

Slavery was generally accepted - The British only abolished the Atlantic Slave trade in 1807 and only abolished slavery in 1833. Spain only abolished slavery in 1811 and I am not sure but maybe they were the first Europeans to do so.

So I don't think that slavery at that point was seen as the issue it became later on.

Also the cotton gin which really helped to justify the economics of the cotton industry was only invented in 1793.

Just a couple of comments.

Jeffrey wrote: "It is interesting to think about the audience Jay is writing for. First thought is probably the Anti-Federalists but I don't think so. Jay is talking about a strong army for national defense but cr..."

I think that adult white males were all allowed to vote for ratification of the constitutions (without even property requirements) and so I would assume that Jay wrote for all who read.

last comment - Jay mentions the fact we were an economic competitor noting the "cheapness and excellence of our production"
------------------------------------------
really an interesting revelation

Thank you Vincent for all of your thoughtful comments.

Excellent Article:

‘Federalist’ Principles of Governing Are Dead – Consider the Impasse Over ‘The Wall’
Bob Barr |Posted: Jan 02, 2019 12:01 AM



Two hundred and thirty years ago, three of our Founding Fathers authored a series of essays that came to be known as the “Federalist Papers.”

Thomas Jefferson years later characterized these writings as the “best commentary on the principles of government which ever was written.” In other words, “if you want to understand how American government is supposed to function, read the ‘Federalist Papers.’”

Sadly, it appears obvious few, if any, of the key protagonists in today’s political battles between the three branches of our government that were established in that bygone era (which I consider our “Greatest Generation”) have read, much less truly understand the principles embodied in that collection of essays.

Most Americans are at least vaguely familiar with the fact that our federal government is comprised of three branches – Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

The men who framed our Constitution, however, incorporated into the mechanisms it created many other important principles; including several that were designed expressly to distance our government from that of Great Britain, the country from which we were splitting.

In establishing the position of “President,” for example, our Framers made clear that this person was not to be selected by, or to be a part of, the Legislative Branch. This is distinct from the British model, in which the chief executive is the “Prime Minister”; chosen not by the voters in general election, but by his or her fellow Members of Parliament, and therefore answerable directly to that body.

By contrast, in our country, the president, as the chief executive, is elected by the citizenry at-large (technically, through “electors”), and therefore answerable to the People of the entire country; not to the Legislative Branch.

Conversely, and in another important principle incorporated into the Constitution, Members of the Legislative Branch (the two Houses of Congress) neither answer to nor are to be controlled by the President. Rather, each Member of Congress (whether Representative or Senator) is to reflect and be answerable to the constituents of his or her district or state; not to the President.

While those interests may from time to time coincide, U.S. Representatives and Senators are not serving in that august institution merely to do a president’s bidding.

So, what has changed (other than a profound ignorance of the principles undergirding our constitutional form of government)? Why do Republican Members of Congress by and large consider it their bounden duty to use their powers and responsibilities to do the bidding of a president simply because the person occupying that office is of the same political party as are they? Similarly, why do Democrats operate in the same mode when the White House is occupied by a person with a “D” after their name?

In a word, what has turned our political structure on its head, is the one thing our Founding Fathers disdained and warned us about – party politics. Especially in the closed, two-party system that has constrained politics in America for more than a century and a half, the primary allegiance deemed important to the vast majority of Representatives and Senators now serving, is to the President who happens to be of their same political party. If the president is a Republican, the congressional leaders of that party consider it their obligation to employ their powers to enact his agenda; and failure to toe that line is considered cause for punishment. The Democrats operate in just the same manner.

Thus have the lines between the Executive and Legislative Branches become muddled, if not largely erased; and most Members of Congress now rarely assert a voice or an agenda independent from that of the president. Members not of the president’s party consider it their primary responsibility to oppose the Administration’s agenda; those who share the president’s political affiliation view it as their almost sacred responsibility to do whatever they can to support the agenda of “their” president.

More:


Source: Townhall

I agree with this I really do - what do the others of you think about this? Keep the filibuster and stop the nuclear option - we need to pass bills that reflect the populace of America and not a limited view - bipartisanship is important - and of course reflection and putting the country first over a political party.

Conservatives Need to Love the Filibuster Again
It matters. It really does.
by CHARLES SYKES FEBRUARY 4, 2019 4:01 AM


Huey Long, after his record-breaking filibuster in 1935

Link:

Source: The Bulwark

A Time to Look Back as We Move Forward. The Federalist Papers Number Four by Publius. Introduction by John Hamilton (QUITE APROPOS FOR CURRENT EVENTS IN THE US AND ABROAD)

Arnold, CA…Federalist Four was written by John Jay and is a continuation of “Concerning Dangers from Foreign Force and Influence” and is below our intro and is available in an audio format if you click the image below.

In our sharply politically divided country it may be time for us all to look back and reaffirm that our country really is a collection of ideas and ideals.

The Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness that we all at times take for granted was hard fought and narrowly won.

In the end our allegiance is not to a King, Dictator or Strong Man but too each other.

One thing the founding fathers all agreed on was that human nature is subject to weakness and they took into account human frailties.

They devised a system that has at many times protected us from man’s and woman’s worst enemy which is the reflection that stares back at us all from the mirror.

After the delegates signed the drafted Constitution in Philadelphia on September 16, 1787, it would only take effect after approval by ratifying conventions in nine of 13 states.

The Federalist Papers were a series of eighty-five essays urging the citizens of New York to ratify the new United States Constitution. Written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, the essays originally appeared anonymously in New York newspapers in 1787 and 1788 under the pen name “Publius.” The Federalist Papers are one of the most important sources for interpreting and understanding the original intent of the Constitution and by extension our American form of government.

One thing we think is important in our Social Media driven world where people can get demonized, marginalized & discarded in an instant is that even 232 years ago our founding fathers knew that ideas had to be removed from personality to be accepted.

Alexander Hamilton was such a polarizing figure that he knew instinctively that if his name was known as one of the authors a large segment of the population would disregard whatever he said.

All of us at times do the very same thing especially in our current age. We label everything, Left Wing, Right Wing, Conservative, Progressive, Socialist, Libertarian & more. So check your biases at the door and take a trip down history lane. You may very well emerge differently on the other side.

Source: PineTreeNet
Link:

Discussion Questions:

1. What does Federalist 4 state about our allegiances to each other versus lobbyists, factions, political parties, labels of allegiance like Far Right or Far Left or Conservatives or Liberals? Does a party's base or the base of a constituent dictate what Congress should be doing to foster the country's ideals/path or have we somehow become undermined and have become not separate branches but united for some political purpose. Not a good picture if that is the case. What are your ideas on the separation of powers and how they are functioning?

2. Have our biases taken over and replaced our neutral and fair minded reflection of the facts - rather than a rendition of facts that have no basis? Do we seek the truth? Or have we become lazy in terms of performing our civic duties? Did the Founding Fathers perceive this to be a danger? Why or why not?

3. What should be the ideals of elected officials - should there be some rules for decorum and speech?

We will revisit this paper to make sure we have adequately discussed it.