From Jefferson's Letter to Francis Hopkinson

I'm preparing notes for the upcoming section on political parties for my 2301's and I came across an extended quote from Jefferson's Letter to Francis Hopkins. This is where the smaller quote: "If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all" comes from. It places the quote in some context:

Paris, Mar. 13, 1789.


Dear Sir,
— * * * You say that I have been dished up to you as an antifederalist, and ask me if it be just. My opinion was never worthy enough of notice to merit citing; but since you ask it I will tell it you. I am not a Federalist, because I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever in religion, in philosophy, in politics, or in anything else where I was capable of thinking for myself. Such an addiction is the last degradation of a free and moral agent. If I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. Therefore I protest to you I am not of the party of federalists. But I am much farther from that of the Antifederalists. I approved, from the first moment, of the great mass of what is in the new constitution, the consolidation of the government, the organization into Executive legislative & judiciary, the subdivision of the legislative, the happy compromise of interests between the great & little states by the different manner of voting in the different houses, the voting by persons instead of states, the qualified negative on laws given to the Executive which however I should have liked better if associated with the judiciary also as in New York, and the power of taxation. I thought at first that the latter might have been limited. A little reflection soon convinced me it ought not to be. What I disapproved from the first moment also was the want of a bill of rights to guard liberty against the legislative as well as executive branches of the government, that is to say to secure freedom in religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable by the laws of the land. I disapproved also the perpetual reeligibility of the President. To these points of disapprobation I adhere. My first wish was that the 9. first conventions might accept the constitution, as the means of securing to us the great mass of good it contained, and that the 4. last might reject it, as the means of obtaining amendments. But I was corrected in this wish the moment I saw the much better plan of Massachusetts and which had never occurred to me. With respect to the declaration of rights I suppose the majority of the United States are of my opinion: for I apprehend all the antifederalists, and a very respectable proportion of the federalists think that such a declaration should now be annexed. The enlightened part of Europe have given us the greatest credit for inventing this instrument of security for the rights of the people, and have been not a little surprised to see us so soon give it up. With respect to the re-eligibility of the president, I find myself differing from the majority of my countrymen, for I think there are but three states out of the 11. which have desired an alteration of this. And indeed, since the thing is established, I would wish it not to be altered during the life of our great leader, whose executive talents are superior to those I believe of any man in the world, and who alone by the authority of his name and the confidence reposed in his perfect integrity, is fully qualified to put the new government so under way as to secure it against the efforts of opposition. But having derived from our error all the good there was in it I hope we shall correct it the moment we can no longer have the same name at the helm. These, my dear friend, are my sentiments, by which you will see I was right in saying I am neither federalist nor antifederalist; that I am of neither party, nor yet a trimmer between parties. These my opinions I wrote within a few hours after I had read the constitution, to one or two friends in America. I had not then read one single word printed on the subject. I never had an opinion in politics or religion which I was afraid to own. A costive reserve on these subjects might have procured me more esteem from some people, but less from myself. My great wish is to go on in a strict but silent performance of my duty; to avoid attracting notice & to keep my name out of newspapers, because I find the pain of a little censure, even when it is unfounded, is more acute than the pleasure of much praise. The attaching circumstance of my present office is that I can do it’s duties unseen by those for whom they are done.—You did not think, by so short a phrase in your letter, to have drawn on yourself such an egotistical dissertation.

Link to the Online Library of Liberty.

The Roberts Court Tilts to the Right

This is hardly news, but this NYT article provides empirical support for the nature of the conservative
direction the Supreme Court has taken since Roberts and Alito joined it.

Extra Credit Book Review - Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error.

I'm adding a new feature to the class. For anyone needing extra credit, I'd like you to review a recently published book. This one caught my eye this week: Being Wrong: Adventures in the Margin of Error. Here's the NYT review.














It seems to touch an an intersting point that applies to politics and governance: Why is it so difficult for people to admit that they are wrong?

Does the Web and Cable News Promote Rage?

A couple of comments on the recent -- and brief -- political controversy involving Shirley Sherrod argue that the 24/7 news cycle and web based commentary fuel hysterical, hateful and unreasonable political discourse.

Is deliberative democracy, or self government in general, possible in this environment? Would politics be as virulent if media technology was slower?

- The Market for Reason.
- The Age of Rage.

Topics - 7/23/10

In the news, and relevant to the subject matter:

- The House Ethics Committee is set to try Rep. Charles Rangel for ethics violations.
- Democratic House Campaign Committee outlines effort to retain House Majority.
- Climate Bill to be trimmed.

Travelling the Ozarks

I've been driving through the Ozarks the past few day (I'm sitting in a motel in Hot Springs Ark at the moment) so I've no had time to keep up on posts. I'll fill in blanks when I come back home.

- Here's a start: Finance Reform Legislation is signed into law.

Discussion Question - 7/17/10

I'm fielding discussion questions from Blackboard and wanted to add some of what's popped up from them.

In response to a question about whether we are in fact a country based on consent -- or if we are just another coercive society -- we touched on Chomsky's theory of "manufactured consent" and the classic doctrine of "ordered liberty" (which I did not know also applied to the extent of 14th Amendment protections).

Some links I ran across:

- answer.com on ordered liberty.
- an essay on Edmund Burke.
- an essay on ordered liberty.
- something from the Acton Institute.
- the wikipedia for Manufacturing Consent.


I'll be back with more.

Finance Regulation Bill Passes

NYT story here.

Initial analysis here.

Click here for bill summary of the Restoring American Financial Stability Act of 2010.

FCC Ruling on Fleeting Expletives Overturned

From the New York Times:

A federal appeals court struck down a Federal Communications Commission policy on indecency Tuesday, saying that regulations barring the use of “fleeting expletives” on radio and television violated the First Amendment because they were vague and could inhibit free speech.

...

In a unanimous three-judge decision, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York said that the F.C.C.’s current policy created “a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at issue here” because it left broadcasters without a reliable guide to what the commission would find offensive.

The appeals court emphasized that it was not precluding federal regulation of broadcast standards. “We do not suggest that the F.C.C. could not create a constitutional policy,” the court said. “We hold only that the F.C.C.’s current policy fails constitutional scrutiny.”

More from ScotuBlog.

This is the latest stage of the saga of FCC v Fox, which is more about the vagueness of rules rather than speech -- as far as I can tell anyway. The FCC may be able to punish broadcasters for these outbursts, but it has to be able to clearly and non-capriciously define them. That seems to be a difficult thing to do.

- What is a fleeting expletive?

Party Leader?

House Democrats accuse Obama of favoring Senate Democrats and hanging them out to dry on key votes. Part of a president's job is to be party leader. This raises questions about Obama's effectiveness in that role.

Did George Washington Really add "So Help Me God" to the Presidential Oath of Office?

Thanks to a student for pointing this story out to me. The common story, which I've repeated, is that Washington altered the presidential oath of office to include "so help me God" at the end, thus beginning a tradition that lasts til today.

A historian points out that not only is there no evidence from that time that he did so (the story evolved decades later) altering the oath seem not to be the sort of thing Washington would have been inclined to do -- having just approved the oath as written in the Constitution. There's more to the argument.

Reminds me of the story regarding the cherry tree (look here and here).

This fits into our discussion of the personal presidency, the efforts to define in terms of the characters of the individuals who occupy it. The stories reflect less on Washington than on what we (or more appropriately the storytellers) want to believe about historical figures.

Please send more.

Defense of Marriage Act Overturned by U.S. District Court Judge

Story in the NYT.

Background.

Adjusting the Electoral College

The New York Senate has voted to alter how it allocates its electoral college vote. They will all be assigned to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.

Welcome Summer 2 Students

The second summer session is about to start and I want to welcome students aboard. You should use this blog as the primary way to access current news as it relates to class material. Comments are always welcomed.

Souter's Speech

Something to read through today: Ex-Justice David Souter's recent speech at Harvard about his approach to the Constitution.

Topics for 7/7/10

- The Justice Department files a lawsuits against Arizona's immigration law. File this under federalism, U. S. Constitution, checks and balances, executive departments and the judiciary. For 2302s note that this was done at the discretion of the Attorney General, the Justice Department is to be independent of the White House so it cannot be used for political purposes.

- The gay marriage controversy seems destined to be settle in the courts. What impact might Elena Kagan have on such a decision? File this under civil rights, federalism, checks and balances and the judiciary

Topics for 7/6/10

Yesterday we watched the first part of the Kagan confirmation hearings -- Leahy's opening remarks. Today we will watch Session's remarks and as much of what follows as we can handle.

I also want to read through this article on the Robert Court's coming of age (the NYT editorializes that it was "aggressive"). It contains a graphic that outlines the major cases of this terms and how the justices voted on them.

In Texas news, the Texas Supreme Court clears the way for the Green Party to be on the November ballot.

Some Bits for Today: 7/5/10

- Maryland is one of several states that must periodically decide whether to rewrite it's constitution.

- Debate continues over unemployment benefit extension. See unemployment data from the BLS for background.

- Teachers' union upset with Obama.

- The perks of seniority.

- Conflict between Obama's economic and political advisers.

- Commerce Clause in the news.

- From "subjects" to "citizens."

- Video of the Kagan hearings.