Constitution Thursday: Recent Episodes
Dave Bowman
The classic 2013 radio broadcast episodes of Constitution Thursday, a regular feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John along with the Podcast Episodes of Constitution Thursday
I have long held that he Anti-Federalist of 1788 is the ideological grandfather of today’s libertarian*. Many of the same issues of today find a distant echo in the complaints of the Anti-Federalists.
In those distant echo’s of the past are many ideas and knowledge points which both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist not only knew, but understood. Many of the things that would have stood out to the readers and listeners of 1788 were familiar to them, but to our modern ears and eyes, either make no sense or we simply do not even recognize them as meaningful.
Let’s start with the names.
The Federalists papers, written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, signed their papers with the nom de plume “Publius.” There were, of course, multiple reasons for this. The the use of a fictitious name removed the built in prejudice from the reader, either for or against the actual author. The name “Publius” was partially chosen to represent the idea, specifically “of the people,” reflecting the Federalist position that “We the People” had created and would operate the Constitution were it ratified. The name would have been seen as a bold claim that the people themselves were sharing this opinion of things. But there is actually a deeper meaning to the name.
For the same reasons, the Anti-Federalists adopted a variety of names and identities: Cato, John DeWitt, the Pennsylvania Minority, the Federal Farmer, and of course, our focus, Brutus. Unlike the Federalist Papers, some of the authors we now know, but many of them at which we are still, more than two centuries later, simply guessing.
Today we read these many names and arguments and we have lost the understanding that readers of both sides would have had in 1788. To gain back some of that understanding, we have to travel back in time to the Rome and the foundation of the Republic. It is here that we find two men, Publius Valerius Policola and Lucius Junius Brutus. More than two thousand years later these two men would inspire the writers on both sides of the ratification debate to proclaim their positions and beliefs.
In 1788, both sides and their audiences knew this history and what was being said…
*When I use the term “libertarian,” I absolutely 100% do not refer to the Libertarian Party. While the party, as such, has some positions in which I am full agreement, the basic philosophy of the party is not compatible with my own beliefs. So to be clear, I will often use the term “libertarian,” but in no way, shape or form, will I be referring to the LP, which does not have sole possession of the term.
As I expected, the ruling against Pennsylvania’s Governor a few weeks ago has been stayed by the Third Circuit Court. The Court made no comment as to a specific reason for the stay, but it was in keeping with other rulings around the Country. And, while the case will be heard by a panel (or possible en banc) at the Third, it is very unlikely that the Governors orders will be again ruled unconstitutional. There is a reason why that is so, and it’s rooted in a long term view of things from 1905.
Meanwhile, in New York, Governor Cuomo has essentially declared war on “religious groups,” specifically Jews, because he has decided that our worship activities at this time (The High Holy Days) are – in his opinion – “super spreader events” for COVID-19.
The problem is, of course, that we are no longer in the “Lochner Era.” Which means that not only is Judge Strickland’s ruling unlikely to be upheld, but Governors everywhere will be emboldened to do such redlining for whatever reasons they see fit.
In the mid 1990’s Kahn Noonien Singh, a genetically superior and engineered superman conquered nearly a quarter of the Earth, putting it under his tyrannical thumb. He and others like him were the result of generations of genetic engineering and selective breeding that failed to consider the element of human nature.
You might think, “Dave, that’s science fiction, nothing like that could ever really happen, at least not here.”
And while it’s easy to imagine some regimes in the 20th Century choosing to eliminate “undesirables from their midst,” it isn’t always comfortable to find out that until 1974, some States had laws on their books allowing for the same thing to happen.
Oh… and the United States Supreme Court had upheld those laws as Constitutional…
Throughout his Presidency, Hayes battles with Congress became legendary. He believed that an attempt by the Bourbon Democrats to add “riders” to funding bills for the Army, the executive and Judiciary that further eroded voting rights for Black Americans was “revolutionary,” a flat out attempt to undermine the Constitution and the rob the Republican Party of it’s most treasured legacy – ending slavery.
Among the Congressmen who stood by him were two of particular note. Though he had long before fallen out with the President, now-Senator Roscoe Conklin (R-NY) was bombastic about what the Bourbon Democrats were attempting to do.
In the House of Representatives, a thoughtful measured and decorated Union General from Illinois galvanized opposition to the Democrat’s efforts. In a speech which garnered national attention, James A. Garfield (R-IL) said:
“… if the President, in the discharge of his duty, shall exercise his plain constitutional right to refuse his consent to this proposed legislation, the Congress will so use its voluntary powers as to destroy the government. This is the proposition… we confront; and we denounce it as revolution.”
His stand with the President brought him to the attention of Republicans, who in 1880, on the 36th ballot nominated him for President.
In another very close election, Garfield would take the popular vote by a mere 0.11%, although things were a bit more lopsided (214-155) in the Electoral College.
Garfield wanted to continue the stalled reformation of the Civil Service, and eliminate the “Spoils System” which had corrupted the government’s Civil Service system. Senator Conklin nearly came unglued over Garfield’s refusal to continue to the system and there as much speculation that his handpicked Vice-President, Chester A. Arthur, would be more agreeable to the old ways.
The problem was, Arthur wasn’t the President, Garfield was.
Until a disgruntled Republican Office seeker decided to change things…
A couple of weeks ago, the administration issued its long-expected Executive Order which purports to "protect free speech” on social media.
Now, for many of us, the idea of forcing a private business to allow a takeover by political speech which it either does not support or doesn’t like, to be something of an anathema.
Oddly enough, buried deep in the EO is a citation to a Supreme Court case that Conservatives have long hated because it seems to eviscerate private property rights and allow the taking of private property as banned by the 5th Amendment.
So why is a President who Conservatives and say they like, pushing a ruling that they hate in order to get what he wants, which is to be allowed to Tweet without any limits or restraints on a platform owned by a private business?
A recent Supreme Court decision (Bostock) has many on the Political right proclaiming the death of the conservative movement. Their reasoning is rooted in a combination of dismay and what has to be some COVID inflicted loss of perspective, but in either case, there is a great deal of anger and gnashing of teeth at Justice Neil Gorsuch, who not that long ago was the darling of the Conservative Right.
This ruling by the Supreme Court has resulted in a number of Facebook posts, one of which caught my eye because it came from a friend who I regard as wise, educated, and having a good understanding of how things work. which brings me back to the same COVID inflicted loss of perspective, and reminded me that it might be time to talk about Article V and how Congress, at least used to, regularly "overrules” the Supreme Court.
One of the life lessons that pretty much everybody learns, sooner or later, is that there is a difference between what you can do and what you should do. In the words of the illustrious Dr. Malcolm, "You were so busy thinking about whether you could that you didn’t stop to think about whether or not you should.”
In the time of COVID, the Constitution has become a focal point for debates and argument which have now spilled over into other areas of civil action and protest. But the question remains about whether or not things that are permissible are in fact, beneficial?
The President, tweeting fiercely, announces that he wants something done. In this case, he is threatening to deploy the military to stop the riots.
Can he do that? Well… the answer is yes, he can.
Should he do that? That is an answer that is not quite as clear, is it?
Barely a week has passed since religious conservatives on the Atlantic Coast were celebrating their victory in the North Carolina District Court, overturning the Governors Executive Order’s ban on religious gatherings, calling it a violating of the free exercise clause of the 1st Amendment. Within hours of that ruling, the 9th Circuit Court met to decide whether a San Diego District Judges denial of an almost identical request for a TRO in California should be reconsidered.
By a two to one margin, the panel upheld the District Judges denial for a TRO and let stand Governor Newsome’s order that banned gatherings for religious services by large numbers that violate social distancing rules. The Church has appealed to the Supreme Court, which sets up an interesting set of potential circumstances.
To understand the potential arguments, we have to go back in time, first to 1949, when a Catholic Priest gave a speech to some eight hundred members of the Christians Veterans of America. Another sixteen-hundred people were also there, and they did not like what he was saying. This led to what many described as a riot, and led to a fierce discussion of what exactly is free speech and – more importantly – a full-on debate about the limits on the 1st Amendments protections.
Then we move to Hialeah, FL in 1993. There, the City Council heard testimony from various officials, including the Police Department Chaplain, calling a specific religious belief "offensive” and "un-American.” They then passed a city ordinance essentially banning the religious practice, which was subsequently upheld by the State Courts and the US District Courts. The Supreme Court, on the other hand, saw things differently.
And it was here that the 9th Circuit Panel looked when they considered whether or not to hear the appeal from Sough Bay United Pentecostal church vs Gavin Newsome. All of this leaves us with more questions than answers…
On May 21, 1702, Daniel Defoe, yes, that Daniel Dafoe, was arrested and imprisoned for his recently published pamphlet which, in keeping with Poe’s Law, failed to please the new Queen of England. This was not ancient history to the Framers of the Constitution, and they made sure that no one person could wield so much power that free expression of religion would become a punishable offense.
Over the years the idea of free expression was tested. Before incorporation, the Courts were content to allow laws that limited the idea. After incorporation, it became much more difficult for governments to limit the practice.
Now, in the time of the Constitution and the COVID, new stress is being placed on the 1st Amendments interpretation of free expression. Multiple States have found themselves embroiled in arguments over whether or not religious services can be held in person and in violation of Governor’s Executive Orders? Even here in the PACNORWEST, the Governor (and failed Presidential Candidate with 0% of the Polls) canceled a scheduled presser to announce some Phase II reopening plans because of recent Court cases over the issue of religious services.
We will focus on one in North Carolina, where a District Court Judge has given many people a rallying cry with his ruling in favor of a temporary restraining order on that Governor’s order about religious gatherings. And we ask the question: if incorporation came about because of the abuses of the States once before, will it happen again?
In the 17th Century, one man had to make a choice. Should he stick to his religious dogma and ignore his own observations and computation, or accept a new reality. As a scientist, he realized that he could not ignore reality. Because of his discoveries, because he was willing to accept that his precious dogma was incorrect, the world changed.
As we begin a new voyage into the universe of the US Constitution, we would be wise to keep in mind that much like Scripture, and two people can look at the identical words on a page and come to a polar opposite understanding. We must steel ourselves to study with a willingness to understand that a different point of view does not mean that another person is our enemy. it means that they have a different experience in life, a different culture or environment. It means that we have an opportunity to learn something new.
And, like Kepler, we must use that new data to see if our dogmas are in line with what we observe. If they are, we strengthen our understanding. if they are not, then we have the opportunity to make a change. One based not on passions or emotions, but on truths.
I have noticed two odd things about the whole COVID-19. Neither of them bode well for liberty in the future. First, Republicans have become Keynesian economic believers. That's bad enough, but the other thing is even worse. There are some Constitutional arguments against the response, but some of the states seem to have found the ironclad Constitutional authorization to impose a State of Emergency which comes with some rather remarkable powers and dangers.
But there is a very big potential downside to the expansion of those powers...
Regardless of how you look at it, impeachment is a political act. The punishment for impeachment is not jail, or a fine or even having to wear an ankle monitor. It is simply the removal of a person from the position or office of trust which they held. They could be charged criminally for their acts after removal, but until 1987, no person who held office or trust under the United States who had been impeached was ever charged criminally let alone convicted of an actual criminal offense.
The Constitution seems clear as to what justifies impeachment: “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” is the actual verbiage, although most Americans seem to only know about the last two. Frankly, that is the main reason that the language has shifted from “quid pro quo” to “bribery.”
At the end of the day, impeachment has always been about politics, because politics is power.
I know that most people find it odd, but I did spend a good portion of my life in the theological field. At the end of the day, what drove me out was the seminal change from people who sought knowledge and discussed things into people who depended upon inductive reasoning to determine their beliefs and refused to learn anything outside of what they had already decided was their “truth.” In the case of my own denomination of birth, we went from a doctrinal text that delved into the depths of theology to a comic book style “What We Believe.” The dumbing down of theology and teaching is what – in my opinion (and others) has led to the decline of faith in our country. It’s too easy to learn and so little effort is put into it. It was a major factor in my own path to Judaism.
Socrates said that the beginning of wisdom is realizing what you don’t know. When I started on this voyage of Constitution Thursday, it was eye-opening how much I simply did not know. It’s surprising to me that even ten years later, I feel like I am still in Constitution 101.
So when a “Professor of Government” at a large state-funded university in a “Conservative” State writes a major article claiming that the Constitution “is the problem,” I am left to wonder if it really is, or if this is just a continued dumb down of knowledge and dependence upon inductive reasoning?
It's hard to believe that we are coming up on ten years of Constitution Thursday... September 17th is, of course, Constitution Day, the day that the framers signed the proposed Constitution of the United States.
It is also the birthday of one John Rutledge, a member of the Convention that proposed the new Constitution. He would go on to be one of the original Associate Justices of the Supreme Court but left to become the Chief Justice of the South Carolina Court. A few years later, after Jay returned to become Governor of New York, President Washington used the Recess Appointment Claus of the new Constitution to appoint Justice Rutledge back to the Court, this time as the Chief Justice.
As the Senate would not be back in session until December, the new Chief Justice took his oath and then did something that virtually no other Chief Justice has ever done - he gave a very public speech in which he suggested something that in today's Social Media world would have gotten him instantly fired. After, of course, numerous apologetic tweets and the de rigueur screaming from chat Radio talking heads, like myself, who would alternately explain what he did or did not mean by what he said. T
he Senate, which finally came back in December, was not impressed. And the first Recess Appointment to the Supreme Court discovered that the People of the United States will always have the final say, even over George Washington...
In 1835 the US Government managed to negotiate a treaty with the Cherokee Tribe that replaced the previous treaty that was supposed to be in perpetuity. This time, the Cherokee “agreed” to leave their ancestral lands in exchange for a lot of money and never come back.
There were, of course, some issues with the treaty, like it was never really completely clear that it was actually with the Cherokee nation, but hey, why let that stand in the way of progress?
This week, the Cherokee Tribe announced that it intended to nominate a person to fill a seat in Congress promised to them in 1835, but hitherto has remained unfulfilled.
Down in Florida, the State ordered a Diet Coach to cease and desist from giving - and charging for - advice to clients on how to lose weight.
On the one hand, the idea that people can't talk to each other and provide a service for which they are in return paid for that service - in this case, advice about what to eat to lose weight - should be a basic cornerstone of libertarian idealism.
On the other hand, the State of Florida disagrees and claims it has a compelling interest in making sure that people who dispense such advice - for money - are up to its standards because 36% of the people who live there are classified as obese.
That puts Florida in the middle percentile of the national obesity rankings. So they passed a law to make it a requirement for anybody who gets paid for nutritional advise must have a degree (which you can get from their State-run Universities for the price of a Masters Program! Get a Student loan to cover it!), nine-hundred hours of supervised training and fork over some money for a license.
All of this is to, as they put it, make sure that the people of the State of Florida, who are not capable of making informed choices about nutritional advise on their own, don't get taken to the cleaners by paying people who have not earned their Masters Degree, taken the training and paid the fee, for their nutritional advice.
Now, the argument being made by the diet coach told to cease and desist is simply that everything she is telling her clients is freely available on the interwebs. Which... is true. But is that really the argument she should have made?
I was asked the other day about comparing the study of Torah to the study of the Constitution.
Most of you know that I once went to Seminary. It was a huge mistake, but I did learn a few things when I was there. One of which was how NOT to study scripture.
Unfortunately, in the ensuing years what I have noted is that most people tend to study the Constitution the way that I learned NOT to study Torah.
The biggest difference between Torah and Constitution is the sheer volume of material available – if you know where to look – to anybody who is willing to accept things at face value and not simply ignore an idea because it doesn’t fit your inducted idea.
That really is the hardest part – dropping all of your preconceived ideas, all of your already decided beliefs, and approaching things with an open mind. You will find that you are right about some things, and you will find that you were wildly wrong about some others.
That said, these are my ideas for how to study Torah… I mean the Constitution…
In the wake of the elections of 1788, the 1st Congress of The United States began to gather in New York.
To say that absolutely nobody had any clue what to do would be the understatement of the last two centuries. Sure, they had the rules laid out in Article I and plenty of experience in State Legislatures, but nobody had any idea if this would actually work or not. Two States had not yet ratified the Constitution and consequently had not even held elections for the new Congress. Travel times were much different than today, as horses or walking were the only ways to get from there to here. Things were slow.
From March 4th, when the Congress convened, it would take a month before a quorum could be achieved. And before a single piece of legislation could be presented, debated, or passed, the first order of business in the House was to elect the 1st Speaker of the House. In the Congress of a nation that was as yet strongly divided, the new Speaker was elected on the very first ballot. It was pretty much the only thing that went easy.
The hurdles faced by the 1st Congress were things that we take for granted in today’s Country. At least half of the Congressmen in New York believed that the new Constitution was not sustainable and that New Yorkers – and by extension Northerners – were conspiring to keep the Nations new capital in New York. As James Madison said, “We are in a wilderness with not a single footstep to guide us.”
And so with the Constitution as their guide and the son of a German Immigrant Luthern Pastor, Frederick Muhlenberg, at the gavel, things got underway…
As the 2018-19 Supreme Court Session winds down, three rulings have recently been released that have the attention of talking heads everywhere. Joining Dave to chat about then is Pat the Lawyer from Constitution Thursday - The Saturday Podcast.
First up, the Bladensburg Cross has passions running high, but the Court reached a 7-2 decision that this specific cross is NOT unconstitutional.
Next up, the Gundy case has Progressives apoplectic over Justice Alito's concurrence to uphold the law which allows Congress to delegate to the Attorney General the control of rules constraining sexual offenders. In an unusual 5-3 ruling, Justice Alito made it clear that he would be happy to overturn the non-delegation doctrine, just not today...
Last up is the much-ballyhooed Gamble case, in which the Court upheld the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine. This isn't just bad news for Mr. Gamble, but is a clear loss for the Administration and specifically President Trump. A bigger question, though, is why did the Prosecutors in Alabama feel the need to hammer Mr. Gamble?
In 1974, Richard Nixon resigned from the Presidency, the only person to ever do so. The primary evidence against him was a set of tapes that he had made in the Oval Office, which purported to contain direct evidence of the Watergate Conspiracy, or at least a lot of buzzing that replaced sections that might have proved the Watergate Conspiracy if they hadn’t been so obviously erased.
After he resigned President Ford pardoned Mr. Nixon on September 8, 1974.
Prior to that day, Presidential papers were not considered “public documents.” They were private papers which belonged to the President. In fact, until Franklin Roosevelt donated his papers to the National Archives through his Presidential Library and Museum in 1939, they had never been available to the public except in the form of books and articles written by researchers who had been granted access.
Until December 19, 1974. On that day, President Ford signed a bill passed by Congress, The Presidential Recordings and Materials Act.” This law, which by definition applied ONLY to the records and Materials of Richard Nixon, made it clear that these were now the property of the United States, to be overseen by the National Archivist, who was charged with determining which records and documents the United States would keep – for potential use in judicial proceedings – and which would be returned as the property of Richard Nixon.
Naturally, the former President sued, claiming that this law was clearly unconstitutional as it violated the ban on Bills of Attainder.
It would take until 1998 to fully resolves Nixon’s role in this. Today, the Federal Courts are preparing to take up two cases that both Defenses are arguing are Bills of Attainder. Will history repeat or will the Courts find that no bills of attainder shall be passed?
The ultimate reason for the Constitution was to preserve the blessings of liberty, to ourselves and our posterity. What was once blindingly obvious to us, has been lost in the fog of the past. And that is why the recent raising of a Liberty Pole caused some questions...
Most of us have long ago said that we believe that Facebook and Twitter (and other Social Media platforms) have the “right” to ban whomever they please, because, “it’s not a First Amendment issue.” In fact, even Trump’s legal team seems to agree with this position.
But solely for the purpose of careful consideration of the ENTIRE issue, let us consider a few things that haven’t gotten much discussion, at least as far as I can find.
Social Media platforms, along with media websites and other types of socially interactive online sites are exempt under section 230 of USC §47 from being held liable for comments (speech) which is shared on the sites in the form of comments and/or posts. The platforms cannot be held legally or financially liable for the users’ inputs, including, by the by, “Main Stream Media” sites such as newspaper comment sections.
Now, again, let us be clear, the Platforms themselves are not the government. I believe that we all agree that given that circumstance, they are free to allow or disallow participation as they see fit. So, banning Alex Jones or Louis Farrakhan or shadow banning Devin’s Cow might be a bad business plan and result in customer blowback, but it is allowable. whether or not they should do it is another matter.
But… let us consider some things here...
The Rogue State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations is eventually compelled by the Governor and the Congress of the United States to ratify the Constitution...
While Virginia and New York debate and eventually ratify, the issue is in doubt in North Carolina. The Federalists there have an unusual idea. But they also know that they are very badly outnumbered. Realizing that they are most likely going to lose the vote, they decide to take a longer view of things.
New York Pt 2
While Virginia and New York debate and eventually ratify, the issue is in doubt in North Carolina. The Federalists there have an unusual idea. But they also know that they are very badly outnumbered. Realizing that they are most likely going to lose the vote, they decide to take a longer view of things.
Benjamin Harrison barely moves the needle on famous Presidents. What most people know of him are two things. First, his Grandfather was a President. Second, he caused one of the greatest jokes on Archer of all time. But even today, his actions vis-a-vis the Constitution continue to resonate. What else is new, am I right?
By June of 1788, ten States have ratified the proposed Constitution. While the technicalities of Article IX have been met, most people understand that the reality is that for the Union to survive, it must be unanimous. Or at least everybody except Rhode Island, which we will deal with separately.
New York is next up on the clock, and already the sniping between the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the longtime Governor of the State, George Clinton (a Revolutionary War General and close friend of Washington's) has become both intense and deeply personal. Hamilton, unlike the musical, is deeply connected to the wealthy landowning elites, while Clinton is much more of an introspective "man of the people." His policies have endeared him to the Middle Class, while the wealthy landowners (Hamilton) have been cut out of New York's spoils.
Of all of the States, New York is virtually the only one that has - because of Clinton's economic policies - emerged from the depression of 1780 in good shape. In fact, the State Treasury has over $3 Million (in 1788 dollars) in surplus. Clinton is wisely using this to improve New York's economy and - of course - keep the votes of the middle and lower classes. Hamilton, who married the daughter of the man Clinton upset in the 1777 Gubernatorial election, opposes the policies that keep New York's money in New York and not allowing Congress to take over the impost (tax) money that New York is collecting. In fact, at one point New York agrees, but petulant Rhode Island torpedoes the deal by refusing to agree. Of course.
More than anyone, it is these two men, Hamilton, and Clinton, who will face off over the Constitution. Clinton will become the very embodiment - in fact, he is the man for whom the term is coined - of Anti-Federalist. He is not an anti-nationalist. He believes strongly in the Union and in liberty. But he opposes ratification. Hamilton is co-writing the Federalist Papers. When everything is said and done, One of them will become a two time Vice-President. The other will become a controversial figure and the centerpiece of rewritten history...
Virginia Pt 2
Jay Leno recently said that he doesn’t miss Late Night TV because “everybody has to know your politics.” In 1788 Virginia, everybody knew Patrick Henry’s politics. Everybody knew James Madison’s politics, and Edmund Randolph and George Mason’s even Judge Edmund Pendelton’s. I guess it’s what happened after everybody knew that really makes the difference.
In Maryland, a High school student in a Social Studies Class has a major issue with one of the class assignments. Her father tells her to refuse to complete it and then sues the school for establishing a religion. After all, goes the reasoning, schools cannot force a student to learn about another religion, right?
When a fellow named gamble, who was a convicted felon, was pulled over for a bad headlight, nobody was thinking to themselves, “Hey, would this have any effect on the Paul Manafort case?” Now they are, but the general feeling is that it won’t have any effect. Why not? Because no matter how hard you try, English Common Law prior to 1868 is not US Law after 1868. What else is new, am I right?
The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance that requires all contractors to "disclose" all of their contacts and sponsorships (whatever that means) with the National Rifle Association. In Delaware, a man wants to apply to be a Judge on the State Bench. But, Delaware has a law that says that he is not qualified to be a Judge. Why not? Because he chooses to not associate with certain groups.
At the end of the day, the real question is why do governments continue to pass laws that they KNOW are not Constitutional. These Governments pay (with tax dollars) for legal advice, so it's not at all possible that they don't know this.
But even were we to be charitable and assume (yes, I know what it means) that they don't know, why do they keep proposing and passing laws that restrict liberty?
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. – ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 2
In Alabama, a man with a long record of violent criminal activity found himself on trial for armed robbery. The trial lasted two days and seemed pretty much slam dunk for the government. Then the jury began to deliberate. And deliberate.
After three hours, they sent a note to the Judge letting him know that they were deadlocked and unlikely to reach a unanimous verdict. after some extensive back and forth, there was one holdout. The Judge decided to take action. eighteen minutes later the Jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.
And on appeal, the 11th Circuit, led by the brilliant Judge Ed Crane, overturned the conviction and granted the man’s habeas corpus demand.
Why?
To answer that you have to go back to Article 1 Section 9 and then back to 1670. A man named William Penn (yes, that William Penn) decided to push the limits of English law and defy the Crown. Of course, he was arrested and put on "tryal” in the Old Bailey.
What happened next is why Judge Ed Crane granted the motion for habeas relief in an Alabama Armed robbery case in 2019…
In Washington, D.C., the shutdown has paralyzed parts of the government. Meanwhile, business and life go on for commercial enterprises, including the making and selling of Beer.
But (insert ominous music here) the government is closed and cannot be bothered to regulate the commercial free speech that it has decreed is required in order for the Beer Brewers to label and sell their product.
So… if the government is required to approve speech, is it really free speech?
This often happens to me. I start down a thought road, planning to talk about one thing, and then I get off on a different road. As Sherlock Holmes described it, I follow the thread where it leads. I had planned to talk about this week's refusal by the Supreme Court to issue a writ of cert to hear Gee v Planned Parenthood, but I got interested in Justice Thomas’ dissent.
Understandably, he is upset at the refusal of the Court to hear the case. There are those who believe that his dissent is rooted in ideology, and it may be. Clearly, he hates abortion and would vote to overturn Roe v Wade faster than a Michael Cohen news story gets on the air. But he does make a valid point – the jurisdiction and duty of the Court, as intended by the Framers, was to resolve questions such as this case asks. Especially when there are differing opinions as to what is going on with a given law in the lower Courts.
So…
There once came a time when the economic situation was chaotic. A long war had drained national resources and there was an overabundance of land and property available for speculative deals. To that end, numerous banks began making speculative loans backed up by literally nothing. The overextension of easy credit along with declining prices of non-land goods was causing a great deal of concern. And when the crap hit the fan, all hell broke loose.
Banks panicked and began calling in loans and foreclosing on the properties.
And then the politicians got involved…
The Constitution guarantees each and every state a "republican form of government.” So is Florida’s rather hectic and confused use of multiple methods of amending its State Constitution actually "Constitutional” in the sense of being done by a "republican form of government” as guaranteed in Article IV, Section 4?
Once upon a time, 1633, to be exact, King Charles issued a Royal Charter for the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantation. Oddly enough, by the time Rhode Island got around to ratifying the Constitution in May of 1790 (the final original State to do so), the charter was still in operation and was held to be in compliance with Article IV Section 4’s guarantee of "a republican form of government.”
By the time the 1840s rolled around, most of the people living in Rhode Island disagreed and decided to write their own State Constitution and elect their own Governor. This did not sit well with either the current government of the State, or with the President of the United States. So when the two sides tried to come to blows, it went about like you would expect it to have, since you’ve never heard about it or seen it in your high school history books.
But it did teach us quite a bit about what a "republican form of government” really is…
In the economic doldrums of the late 1970s, the State of Michigan hit on an idea to take over some land it liked and build a car plant which would create jobs and economic benefit. The people who owned the land weren't all that thrilled about the idea, nevertheless, the state persisted. Eventually, the Michigan Supreme Court decided that the taking was a legitimate use of eminent domain for economic benefit. Thirty-seven years later, it didn't turn out to be such a great idea.
The State of Indiana argued yesterday that seizing a person's car for doing 5mph over the speed limit was not an "excessive fine." Seriously. That's not a joke. They really argued that. The Supreme Court didn't think that it was funny.
The American Legion v The American Humanist Association (a/k/a The Bladensburg Cross)
The Supreme Court will hear the Bladensburg Cross case after the 4th Circuit ruled that public expenditures used to maintain the monument violate the 1st Amendment prohibition against the establishment of religion by the Government. It is always a touchy subject, and the debates are always passionate. From Bladensburg to San Diego, the debate rages as to what exactly constitutes "establishment" and whether or not the long history of various monuments has any sway in the question of the status of the monument.
Like most things, it's not as simple as it seems. Nor is the hyperbole - on both sides - helping to sort through the real issues.
Every few years one side or the other complains that the President is over-reaching his authority. This almost naturally leads to the debate over "Implied Powers," and whether or not they (the implied powers) exist (they do) or not?
In 2014, the world faced the specter of ISIL (or ISIS or IS) as the Islamic State overran vast swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria (the "Levant") and begun to impose its version of Islamic Law on the local inhabitants who really just wanted to be left alone. When they (the locals) wouldn't go along with the insane Islamic nut jobs, they (ISIL) began to commit mass murder on an industrial scale.
Reactions ranged from the idea that we - the United States - had a "moral" duty to step in, to the position that we should stay the heck out of yet another war in Asia. was the Islamic state an actual threat to the United States or its "national interests?"
How do we define the "National interests" that guide our foreign policy? Most of all, what does the Constitution have to say about not just the powers involved, but what, if anything, about the process?
Sausage making, as the process has been described, is not really pretty, and generally speaking not at all interesting.
But if you want breakfast, you have to break a few eggs. And grind up some pigs...
This past week the Chief justice of the US Supreme Court ordered a stay at the beginning of the trial of the case, Juliana v US. this is the second time that there has been a stay in the famous case, which seeks to force the US Government to pursue policies that would "keep warming in check." Both the Obama Administration and the Trump administration (which submitted a 103-page argument to the Court asking for the stay) have argued that the case is problematic, in that it violates the separation of powers in the Constitution.
The plaintiffs, supposedly a group of young people, claim that their civil rights have been violated and they have demanded policy changes that would "protect their civil rights" from the effects of global climate change in the future.
This raises a number of questions, one of which is, what exactly is a "civil right?"
The Congress shall have Power To ...regulate Commerce...with the Indian Tribes...
ARTICLE I, SECTION 8, CLAUSE 3
That's how it always begins. Very small.
A man living in Oklahoma has a girlfriend who has an ex-boyfriend who gets into it with the man. In a gruesome crime, the ex-boyfriend is murdered, his genitals left on his chest on the side of the road. Not being a criminal mastermind, the man, Murphy, is caught. As there is little doubt and much evidence that he did it, he is tried and convicted of capital murder. The sentenced is death.
Not so fast...
The crime was committed by a member of the Creek nation. The victim was also a Creek. And it appears that the crime was committed on Creek land. That being the case, the State of Oklahoma would have no jurisdiction, it would be a Federal case, requiring a Federal (not State) prosecution. Because of the laws and agreements with the Tribes, such a crime cannot have a death penalty unless the tribe agrees to it, which they almost never do.
Not so fast... was it on Creek land? The Treaty of 1831 says that it is, but subsequent treaties (1866) make it less than clear. Did Congress intend to take the land where the crime occurred away? Did they actually do it? Did somebody make a big mistake and forget a sentence in a document more than a century ago?
And if it is Creek Land, what does that mean to the State of Oklahoma? What if the State of Oklahoma, as we've known and loved it since 1907, isn't the State of Oklahoma? What if it's only half the size it is today?
Absurd, you say? That's not what the 10th Circuit Court says. And depending on how the Supreme Court rules, it might not be so crazy. By next June there might be a new old Territory and fifty percent less of the State of Oklahoma.
It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show...
Three weeks after the convention ends, the first of the many letters debating the proposed Constitution appears in published newspapers. The discussion will revolve around whether the Nation should remain as it is, a confederation of thirteen sovereign republics, or if it should move to a single central government.
Already dividing lines are being drawn between those who favor the new Constitution and those who fear that it goes too far and takes too much away from the individual States.
By this point, virtually every newspaper in the country has printed a copy of the proposed Constitution, allowing every citizen to read it or at least hear it, and to discuss it among themselves. This is the moment when every man will have to decide for himself under what impressions he will act.
For this first, and perhaps only time in all of history, the People are asked to decide their form of government, not just who will be the leaders.
And the debates, are just beginning.
After recent school shootings, the proposal was made to raise the age for purchasing guns to twenty-one. in at least two cases, challenges were filed and in at least one of those, the challenge was upheld as the practice was seen as being in violation of equal protection and various State laws.
So now we move to the state of Louisiana. The Legislature there, deeply concerned about the well-being of young and vulnerable women who dance with exposed breasts and/or buttocks for money from patrons who must remain at least three feet away, must be twenty-one years of age in order to do so.
Naturally, the dancers who performed with exposed breasts and/or buttocks and who were under 21 sued in Federal Court. They are claiming that the law would violate their constitutional right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed for money from patrons who must be at least three feet away.
Now look, there are a whole lot of issues here that we could get into, and perhaps we will tomorrow. But for now, the question is simply this: does a law restricting the right to dance with breasts and/or buttocks exposed to twenty-one and older meet muster Constitutionally? It's not quite as clear cut as you might think, and it's what we talk about today on Constitution Thursday...
In recent days, we have watched the debate over the nomination of a Supreme Court Justice. While the debate rages around things such as abortion, gay rights, women's rights, and so forth, the single fact remains that these things are rarely the meat and potatoes of what the Supreme Court does. Almost never are those things noticed until after the fact. indeed, very few (if any) questions of any nominee relate to them or to the understanding of how those things might end up affecting our day to day lives.
In 1820, a Pennsylvania man was found guilty of violating a State Law that required him to report for duty as a part of the militia during the War of 1812. He had refused service in the Pennsylvania Militia, and now it was time for the state to lower the boom. But the Feds also wanted their pound of flesh, because they believed that the Congress has powers over the Militia, and this man has spurned those laws. The Court ruled that the 5th Amendment didn't apply because (a) there was no incorporation and (b) the Constitution had not limited states from passing laws to punish people for failing to show up for the Militia and (c) Congress had passed such laws.
Back in 1922, a man was found guilty in the State of Washington of violating the state's prohibition against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. Then the fed stepped in and after he was convicted charged him with violations of the Volstead Act, the national law against the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages. He protested, claiming that under the 5th Amendment this amounted to double jeopardy. The Court said that there were two systems of sovereignty, State and Federal. As a citizen, we voluntarily accept that we live under both sovereigns and therefore we can be punished by both for the same act, just not twice by either.
And in 2015, a man was stopped for having a headlamp out in his car. The officer who stopped him smelled marijuana and found the driver was a convicted felon, so he searched the car, finding drugs and a 9mm handgun. The man (Gamble) does not deny this. The state convicted him of being a felon in possession of a handgun, and then the Feds also charged him with the same crime. And the Supreme Court has been asked, once again, to consider whether or not the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine is Constitutional.
When the USS Caine, a fictional minesweeper in WWII, was in danger of foundering in a hurricane, the Executive Offer, with the encouragement of the Wardroom, relieved the CO and "saved" the ship. It was a clear cut case of mutiny, and as such a Court Martial would be required to resolve the matter. In the climactic moment, it becomes clear that though the Captain may be in trouble, the XO acted improperly and precipitously. He was not well advised and the Wardroom failed in its primary duty.
The interesting thing is that the movie itself, and specifically was in the minds of the commission that gathered to consider the words of what would become the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Today you can buy a "25/45" T-shirt and you'll hear Talking Heads debating the whole idea of how the 25th Amendment could be used to rid the country of the hated Trump. What was once considered a ridiculous idea has gained enough steam that Vice President Pence had to specifically deny that he had conversations with the Cabinet regarding the implementation of the 25th. In fact, many people still believe that he wrote the infamous New York Times Op-Ed as the opening shot of a 25th coup d'état.
The problem is that the 25th was never intended to get rid of a President because some part of the country doesn't like the way he parts his hair...
One of the myths about the Constitution is that The Federalist Papers are a commentary, like Matthew Henry's, on the Constitution. They are not. They are simply and only a passionate written argument in favor of the ratification of the Constitution.
That doesn't mean that they are not without merit and not without lessons for us today. They do give us insight into the understanding of the document which the Framers - at least those in favor of ratification - held of the government plan which they had created.
To that end, they are not only important, but they are required study for anyone who seeks a serious understanding of the Constitution of The United States.
Which is why my ears picked up when I heard questions directed to Judge Kavanaugh yesterday regarding not just his personal favorite Federalist Papers (which did not include my personal favorite), but also his explanation of how Federalist 51 has impacted his personal Judicial philosophy.
Federalist 51, famous for one particular phrase, reminds us of some very important ideas about the structure of our Government, many of which have been diluted and dissipated through the years. But Judge Kavanaugh has been very active during his time on the Federal bench in opposing that dilution. A fact that has not gone unnoticed by those paying close attention to the things that really matter rather than those protesting the things that really don't matter as much as they would want them to matter.
The bigger question that should come out of Judge Kavanah's answer is why is it that we have gotten so far away from the ideas and constructs that were established? And why then is it such a problem for some that a Justice Kavanaugh looks like he would seek a return to the separation of powers and unbalanced system the Framers intended?
Ay, there's the rub...
James Madison once wrote that "A Government is instituted to protect property of every sort...This being the end of government, that alone is a just government, which impartially secures to every man, whatever is his own."
So what happens when a government, other then the national government, that is, decides that it wants what you have, even if they claim it's for a "public benefit?"
In the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania, a nice old lady - she's even named Rose Mary Knick - owns a cute place on the edge of town that has a bit of property around it that - this is important - she owns.
(Commence menacing music here)
The Township loves its history and it wants to share it - all of it - with pretty much anybody who happens to saunter through the Township. And for reasons that will soon become the focal point of our discussion, it has decided that some of that history is on little old Rose Mary's property.
So what's a Township to do?
You might think that they would sit down with Rose Mary and have a nice pleasant conversation - probably over tea and milk and homemade cookies that she would make for the occasion - about the importance of this particular piece (or pieces) of history that might be on her land and work out a way that would benefit the Township, Rose Mary Knick and all the history loving wanderers who go gallivanting through the Township of Scott.
Yeah... you might think that.
So of course, that isn't what the Township of Scott, Pennsylvania decided to do...
And it's our case for this week on Constitution Thursday, somewhat tongue in cheek titled: Grandma's Haunted History...
A few years ago there was a wonderful show on TV, "How the States Got Their Shapes." Host Brian Unger takes you around the country and looks at.... well... how the states got their shapes. It's all based on the book of the same name (HERE). For what it's worth, the show is better than the book, but the information is the same.
At any rate, why does any of that matter?
Yesterday, the California Supreme Court ruled that the much-heralded and discussed Prop 9, a vote by the people on whether or not to separate California into three States should be removed from the ballot because it "might" violate the States Constitution.
Now... whether it does or not we have to ask some questions about this whole deal.
Plausibly live, It's Constitution Thursday on The Dave Bowman Show!
On Constitution Thursday we delve into the statement by the current President to the effect that he could pardon himself, were such a pardon were actually needed.
It isn't as clear-cut as you might want it to be - from a Constitutional viewpoint. But I would think that from a political viewpoint, it would create immense problems. Great problems. The biggest and best problems we've ever seen in this country.
And that would be, of course, just the beginning...
Constitution Thursday looks at the "free exercise" or religion. From Jefferson's Danbury Letter to a ruling from the 6th Circuit, how far can the Government go to limit 'the free exercise" of belief?
If a Church decides to open a cafeteria to serve the public, using members of the congregation as staff for the express purpose of proselytizing, can the government claim that it'a violation of labor laws?
In a ruling that surprised absolutely nobody - with the possible exception of the President himself - the Southern District of New York ruled that the President cannot block people on Twitter.
Shocker.
Let's spend Constitution Thursday digging into this and seeing what other things it might end up impacting...
It's Constitution Thursday, and we take a look at Federalism and its evolution in The United States under the Constitution. What seemed at first to be a pretty clear distinction between state and federal powers, has slowly morphed into a whole lot more Federal and less State. And the journey to get there started long before the Progressive era. In fact, it really started the day after the Constitution was ratified.
We'll take a short look at two cases in the news this week. One of them went before the Court and the law passed by Congress was stuck down, allowing for sports Betting to be opened up across the nation. It's the opinion in that case that has Progressives excited and one of them even exclaiming that "Federalism can be good for liberals!"
The other deals with the laws being debated by Congress as we speak to make any attack on a Police Officer a Federal Crime. who would oppose that? After all, we "support" Law enforcement, right?
Or do we support and defend the Constitution?
President Trump has exercised his Executive authority to call forth the National Guard for the expressed purpose of "doing Military things' to guard the border with Mexico.
Whether or not you agree with his policy, we ask the question about why it is that he President is calling forth the militia of the several states, when Article I section 8 makes it clear that Congress is supposed to be doing that. The President is the Commander in Chief.
It's Constitution Thursday on Plausibly Live...
After their experience in the American revolution and years of watching Kings buy their way to policy, the Framers believed that a simple and even elegant solution was to simply ban the ability of a single person to hold Office both civilly and in the government. Makes sense, right?
So how did we get to the place where the Article is routinely "ignored" and senators become Secretaries?
Live broadcast of Constitution Thursday looks at the limits of the 26th Amendment in the light of calls for raising the purchase age of guns to 21
The 2nd circuit says that a not-for-profit group must turn over its donor list to the Attorney General of New York State. Citizens United argued that the donor's information is protected as anonymous speech, but the Court rejected that argument. We look at why and how this odd argument took place.
In the ongoing (with no end in sight) debate over exactly what to do about mass shootings, the doctrines have become entrenched. On the Left, all guns must be eliminated, because Australia did this and ended gun violence. On the Right, Switzerland and Israel have guns everywhere and they have no such shootings.
Guns must be taken away; guns are a Constitutional right and cannot be taken away.
Who is correct? What if both sides are to a degree? What if neither side is correct at all?
People who refuse to think, read that last paragraph, and have already tuned out because they “know” the correct answer. Nothing – not even the Finger of G-d – will change their minds.
For the rest of us, what happens when we actually read what the Courts have said about the gun? Do we come away with our own positions further strengthened? Or more confused than ever?
Remember that until Heller (2008), the unequivocal position of the Supreme Court was that the 2nd Amendment was not incorporated, meaning that while the Federal Government could not infringe your right to keep and bear arms, any given State could do so.
And some did. And since Heller? Well… McDonald incorporated the 2nd Amendment, but does that mean that there are no reasonable limits on who can have a gun?
It is almost an Article of Faith among Conservative Right political folk - the Courts are stacked with liberal activist Judges who will always overturn the will of the Voters. Don't believe me? Well... this week the Godfather of conservative Talk Radio said pretty much exactly that.
The problem is, of course, that Articles of Faith are usually - okay, always - based on confirmation bias. That is to say that they are based only upon things that tend to support the statement. events or things that tend to disprove the Article of Faith are generally ignored or dismissed.
When it comes to the Constitution, this is especially true. Conservatives believe that Activist Judges are upending the whole thing, while Progressives believe that the Judges aren't activist enough. Which more or less means that the truth is somewhere in the middle.
Since I am on the political Right, I prefer to look at things that challenge my own position and thinking. When it comes to the perception of Judges destroying America, there's no place better to start than the 9th Circuit Court in San Francisco.
So let's go there and take up the case of a Roseville Police Officer who managed to get herself terminated, for having sex, with a fellow Officer...
"nor excessive fines imposed..." - 8th Amendment
So what happens when a young man sells four grams of heroin to an undercover cop? Obviously, he gets busted, does a year on house arrest, and pays a fine. Then he decided to get his life back together and heads out to find a new job.
But... The cops weren't done.
They used civil forfeiture laws to seize his car, valued at $40,000. Don't read too much into that value, there is a valid reason that he had the money to buy it in the first place. He sued, and the lower State Court held that he should get his car back. After all, it was only 4 ounces of heroin, and he had paid the fine the Court had imposed...
The Law Enforcement agencies appealed it to the State Supreme Court...
Constitution Thursday takes a look at the history of the Supreme Court's process through the lens of one of the most controversial rulings ever made, Roe v Wade and the function of the 9th Amendment.
At Launch by Kevin MacLeod is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/...)
Source: http://incompetech.com/music/royalty-...
Artist: http://incompetech.com/
As James Madison leaves New York City to stand for election to the Virginia Ratification Convention, he is troubled. Overall, the nation is moving towards Ratification, but major hurdles remain, including New York, North Carolina, and of course, his home State of Virginia. If two of those three reject ratification, the entire enterprise will be in doubt.
In Virginia, he finds the distasteful process of just getting elected tot he Convention an annoyance. Even if he gets elected, he still will face the man who many believe is the greatest orator of all time, Patrick Henry who has made it clear that he will not support ratification. Or maybe he will? This is the real issue in Virginia, the three positions taken by the various partisan sides.
First are the Federalists, led by Madison, they support ratification as is. Next come the slightly-anti-Federalists, led by such men as Randolph and Mason, who will support ratification IF, and that is a big IF, they can get amendments included which they believe will safeguard individual rights.
Thirdly, there is Kentucky. Currently, it is part of Virginia. Madison has been fighting a losing battle in Congress for the last two years to make her a State in her own right, but the inertial resistance has led many in Kentucky and around the South, in general, to believe that the proposed Constitution is little more than a Northern power grab.
And overarching it all is Patrick Henry. There are rumors that he has his own ideas about what Virginia should do. Nobody is certain, but the evidence seems to lead to the conclusion that he would not be displeased if Virginia fails to ratify. Where there is smoke, there is fire, and Madison has to find a way to neutralize Henry's opposition.
Many years ago, back in the 1970s, you could, on rare occasions, actually learn something watching a TV crime drama. And so it was that way back when, Dave watched an episode of Quincy, M.E., during which he learned a fact about how Jury trials can work that he retains even today. That single fact is helpful when we recall the purpose of the Jury is to serve as a mighty bulwark against the government. To make certain that the government isn't allowed to just run roughshod over accused citizens.
At the same time, that simple fact also makes certain that a person who is guilty can't hide behind confusion and misdirection.
Back in 2012, a man stood accused of hacking into PriceWaterhouse and stealing the Romney's tax returns, which he threatened to release to the highest bidder if he didn't get paid $1Million in digital currency. The self-named "Dr. Evil," was about as competent as his nom de guerre, and ended up in the custody of the US Secret Service, who take a dim view of people threatening potential Presidents with blackmail. He denied being involved, of course, and eventually found himself sitting in front of a Jury as the Secret Service laid out their digital case against him.
It was extremely complicated, and for people who aren't computer experts, somewhat confusing. To make sure that the Jury understood the case, the Judge allowed the same thing that Dave learned watching Quincy, M.E., all those years ago to happen...
As the debates rolled on, the nation considered many elements of the proposed Constitution. In Rhode Island, there was grave concern over the idea that the State would not be able to print its own paper currency. In Virginia, the Kentucky Counties worried about the navigational rights on the Mississippi River. But nearly everyone agreed on one issue - the idea that if the nation went to war, it would be stronger united than not.
On April 6, 1917, Congress gathered to vote on whether or not the United States should declare war on Imperial Germany. Four days earlier President Woodrow Wilson had made it clear that the United States was needed and ready for the fight against an evil and depraved monarchy that chose war over peace and threatened the entire world. But, he also made he it clear, that it would not be, could not be, his decision alone to send the US into World War I.
Despite the changes in the world since 1787, one thing remained the same. It was that one thing that the Framers had in their prescience foreseen: that no one person should ever be allowed to take the US to war.
Imagine for the moment that you are living in Small Town, USA. Your life is pretty normal and while there are things about your life that you wouldn't want people to know, you aren't a pervert or a criminal. You're just an average person when it comes to your private life and your online activities.
Maybe you have a friend, his name is... oh let's just call him John. John Q. Public. He lives in your town and runs his own contracting business. Heck, maybe you've even hired him once or twice. Like you, he has a bank account and a line of credit for his business. He also likes to travel, having gone to Europe last year. It's something you'd like to do, but you're just too busy.
One afternoon, there is a knock at your door. It's the local Police and they have a search warrant.
A search warrant for your computer. Signed by a local Judge, they want your search engine history. All of it. They have no reason to believe that you did what they are investigating, but they have convinced the Judge that if they can just look at everybody's computer and search engine history, they can find out who did do whatever it is that they are investigating.
Now again, you've done nothing wrong. Well... maybe you're a little weird and all, but what you search for is your business after all and not my place to judge. But you've committed no crime and there is no reason whatsoever to suspect that might have. But here at your door stands a police officer with a warrant for your search engine history.
By the by, as you're standing there, you notice that across the street, another Officer with another warrant is knocking on that sweet old lady's door. And a couple of doors down the Pastors house has yet another Cop with a warrant. In fact, you notice that every house has a police officer with a warrant knocking on the door.
Never happen, Dave, you might be saying. First off the Cops got better things to do and nobody would be that silly and no Judge would ever approve such a warrant in the first place.
That's what you would tell me, right? Right?????
In 44bce, following the death of Julius Cæsar, Mark Anthony wasn't really impressing people in Rome with his leadership and management. Despite his inspiring speech at Cæsars funeral pyre, he was basically making a pigs breakfast of things.
Opposing him was Cicero. Here was a Constitutionalist, a leader, and a man of words. And it was to words which Cicero turned in his very public condemnation and criticism of Anthony. He delivered a series of fourteen speeches, known as the Philippics, in which he rips Anthony for everything from his management to his dalliances with women (even one beneath his station) and even implies that Anthony might be, just possibly, at least once or maybe twice, homosexual.
For his impertinence and speeches, Cicero will be killed by Anthony. Well... not Anthony himself, he was busy. But some of his men took Cicero's head and hands, and nailed them to a wall in Rome.
There Anthony's current wife (#3 of at least 4, maybe 5), pulled out his tongue and drove a needle through it.
It seems that free speech criticizing the government was a risky business in the ancient Roman Republic. Anthony himself would also learn that lesson the hard way in a decade or so.
Which brings us to today, in a place about as different from Cicero's Rome as you can get, the halls of the State Capitol of Utah, located in downtown Salt Lake City. Utah, by the by, is a place with which I was once very familiar, having attended Ogden High School from where I graduated in May of 1981. It (Utah) was deeply influential on me and my views of religious freedoms and tolerance. You may ask how, but that is a discussion for another day, except to simply say that I was not a member of the primary religion in the State.
Here in the State Capitol of Utah, the Legislature has voted unanimously, to ban and to punish speech which it has said is "intended to harass" or even "frighten" or perhaps just "annoy" another person. But going a step further, Utah's lawmakers have decreed that such speech ONLINE is hereafter, henceforth, and forever banned. Don't even try it. Or else.
The Legislature says that this is to protect "the people" from being "harassed" online, but the interesting thing about the bill is that the "people" most likely to be involved in being talked about online are who exactly? Oh yeah... the Legislators themselves.
By the by, Utah is not the first State to try such a law. And while some protections are obvious, there is a further test which the Courts have already designed and applied, which - it appears - Utah hasn't heard about.
The first one is, of course, that pesky 1st Amendment thingee...
One of the things that I believe we (corporately, not you specifically) have lost connection with our history, is that our Framers and Founders were people, not demigods (Thomas Jefferson notwithstanding). In 1865, George Washington will be featured in a painting that is hung in the dome of the US Capitol, visible through the oculus of the dome. The painting portrays Washington being elevated to the status of a deity. The idea of portraying Washington as a god really does not offend most Americans.
On occasion, it's worth our time to talk about and recall the realities of these men and women. They lived, they loved, they got mad, they had joys. They traveled and they discussed. They argued and they liked and disliked each other. They wrote copious letters to each other in flowery language that both complemented and occasionally berated each other. They saw things differently. Some favored one way, others favored another.
On March 30, 1788, six of the necessary nine States have ratified the Constitution. The debate is leaning towards Ratification in Maryland, and in South Carolina, the resistance of the country folk is being dealt with. In New Hampshire, the efforts to manipulate things by the Federalists are being indefatigably resisted by the anti-Federalists in Convention. New York has not gathered in convention as yet, but already more than seventy letters have been published as "The Federalist Papers" arguing for the ratification. Likewise, dozens of anti-ratification letters have been published. The debate, while hopeful, is still in doubt. There are many who believe that there will be a new United States that will not have all of the original States as a part.
In Bath, England, Abigail Adams begins her trip home to The United States after three years in Paris and London.
Over the past six months, a couple from Alexandria, John and Elizabeth O'Conner, have been corresponding and even in early February, visiting the Washington's. Mr. O'Conner is a "barrister," from Ireland, who plans to write a topographical and geographical description of The United States. Elizabeth has opened a small school for girls in Alexandria.
At Mt. Vernon, George Washington sends a letter to Mr. O'Conner, thanking him for his kind words and invitation to a speech. A presentation on eloquence by Mr. O'Conner which Washington clearly had no intention of attending. Probably because he knows what the O'Conner's are really (probably) up to...
When we hear the term "muckraking," we almost automatically go in our heads to politicos and specifically those who "report" on politicians and their antics. There's a good reason why we associate the phrase that way. And much of it goes back to the 1st decade of the 20th Century when calls in earnest were coming from the media to chance how Senators would be elected.
In the early 1900s, President Theodore Roosevelt began to label those in the press who attacked him or the government as "muckrakers," a term he has borrowed from a book written in 1678 and well known to Christians even today, Pilgrim's Progress.
But it was over the US Senate that the muck-rakers, as they even began to call themselves, really began to strike a blow against what they perceived as government corruption and the failure of the US Senate. When William Randolph Hearst began to promote the attacks against the Senators such as Nelson Aldrich of Rhode Island, it became increasingly clear that facts were no longer relevant to the discussion. Whether there was or was not any truth in the accusations or the stories of gridlock and failure by the States no longer matters. When one Senator was exposed as a corrupt and evil man, it reflected upon the entire body.
When what would become the 17th Amendment was first introduced, it faced an uphill battle. As time went by, and as more and more of the muck-rakers "uncovered" scandals and perceived injustices, it gained traction. In 1912 it would be adopted by Congress and in 1913 it would be ratified by the requisite number of States.
And in that lies the story of how the press can change the vision of the Framers and the US Constitution...
In 1788, Fishkill, New York, was a well known and important city, having once served as the Capitol of New York State. It was also the home of the largest supply depot of the Continental Army. And Fishkill had its own newspaper, The New York Packet, later known as Louden's New York Packet.
It was this newspaper, on Tuesday, February 19, 1788, that published another in a series of essays that were rapidly taking the country by storm. The essays were anonymous and while there was much speculation as to the authorship, only four or five people (not counting the writers themselves) in the entire nation could say with any certainty that they knew who the author - or authors - was. Even George Washington pretended to not know as he praised the essays and proclaimed, "Who is the author?" In fact, he had been directly told by the authors that they were in fact, the authors.
The Federalist Papers, as the essays had become known, were "the best argument" in favor of ratification for the new Constitution. They were directed at the people of New York, as the debate swirled about the State, but in fact, they reached the entire country. Published in bound volumes almost as soon as the ink dried, they became a prized possession of Americans from Maine to Georgia. Indeed they were a hit internationally as well. The French offered "honorary citizenship" to the authors, one of whom would later accept the honor.
For all their grandeur and importance in their day, they have lost a certain appeal to modern Americans. They are dismissed as "old ideas," and even in the 1860s some of the essays were... if not ignored, certainly given less priority because of who the author was. And it might surprise you which ones were relegated, given the state of things today.
That Tuesday morning, readers of the New York Packet found two of the letters, numbers 56 and 57. Addressing the concerns over the House of Representatives, the author outlined his beliefs and argued that the House would be something very special and dear to the people as the primary defense of their liberties.
For myself, it is Federalist #57 that speaks loudest. It is written, as we now know, by James Madison. And it is here that we find the answer to the questions so often asked today as to where things "went wrong." Madison and Hamilton knew and understood the dangers of politics and power against the liberty of the people. The argument of Federalist #57 is how to defend liberty against such incursions.
It remains my personal favorite of the Federalist Papers, and in it, I find a renewed belief that We the People choose our destiny.
Which is, after all, the very meaning of the word, Liberty.
On Monday, Judge Leonie Brinckema, a Federal Appeals Judge in Virginia, issued an injunction against President Trumps Immigration Executive Orders on the basis that they are in fact, a Muslim Ban.
The Government has argued that the doctrine of Plenary Powers over National Security and Immigration should make the Orders unreviewable. But can such power be given under the Constitution? If the answer is no, then can a statement made outside of the Orders by the President and his advisers be taken into account as to the intent of the orders?
If the answer is yes, are we prepared to accept a country where he sitting President has unchecked power which neither the Courts nor Congress can counterbalance?
It's a Valentine's Day Tuesday episode of Constitution Thursday!
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed... 8th Amendment
In recent days, members of the California State Senate and Assembly have made the reformation of the Bail system a "Legislative Priority" in the State. Their reasoning is that on any given day, 63% of the people held in the States Jails have not been convicted of any crime. They are simply awaiting trial and cannot - for a variety of reasons - make bail.
The Legislative argument goes that the main reason that people cannot make bail is twofold. First, that bail levels are set far too high in the State. Second is that the Bail system discriminates against those who are "poor," in favor of those who have money. So the solution that at least two other States have elected to employ is to eliminate Bail requirements for some "low level" crimes.
The history of Bail in The United States traces its origins to 1689 and the Glorious Revolution. And, with just a single word change since, has been a cornerstone of those rights which we have held dear, both as Englishmen and as Americans.
So is Bail really discriminatory? Or is there a bigger problem? Or any problem at all? And why hasn't the Supreme Court addressed it?
Today we look at Bail on Constitution Thursday.
July 4, 1788 - In Providence, the local Federalists have set up a giant barbecue to celebrate both the Independence Day holiday and to read aloud the proposed Constitution. There is little hope that Rhode Island will quickly ratify the Constitution, in fact, as of today, there hasn't been any move to even call for a convention to consider the document.
The anti-Federalists in Rhode Island aren't just opposed to the Constitution. They oppose virtually every idea to strengthen the Union. For the past few years, they have intentionally/unintentionally sabotaged the Articles of Confederation by using the power of the veto to stop any forward progress. It is in Rhode Island where the rampant use of State issued paper money has resulted in chaos and financial ruin to States and individuals trying to do business with Rhode Islanders
Now, as the few Federalists in Rhode Island gather to celebrate, William West, leader of the Country Party, decides to take action and make sure that the Providence Federalists understand that Rhode Island has no intention of ratifying the Constitution. He means to shut down their celebration and end once and for all the consideration of the Constitution in Rhode Island...
In the summer of 2016, the idea that an election could be "rigged" didn't really surprise anybody. At the same time, it also allowed Americans of all political stripes to act like Captain Renault and feign shock at the idea that American democracy could be so callously and easily manipulated.
New Hampshire was the first of the Colonies to establish a government independent of the Crown and to establish its own state Constitution.
In the Spring and Summer of 1788, New Hampshire has a unique opportunity. If she ratifies, she will become the Ninth Pillar, thus establishing the Constitution as the new government of The United States. But she also faces the same problem that South Carolina, Massachusetts, and other States have seen. That is, that the seaboard cities with their heavy mercantile class population support ratification, while the interior country folks are less enamored with the Constitution.
New Hampshire's problem is that her seaboard is tiny and heavily outnumbered by the country folk. So... if you happen to be an ardent Federalist in New Hampshire in the Spring of 1788, what do you do?
What do you do? Hmmm.....
Of all the states that - even for a fleeting moment - thought that they might be able to go their own way and reject the Constitution, Virginia is probably the only one that really had a chance of success. But Virginia is also the center of The Enlightenment in America; and it is her leaders who have the confidence of the nation. So much so, that Madison almost won't make it home in time to be elected to the Virginia Convention, because he is busy conducting the Nations business which is entrusted to Virginia.
It is here that the most eloquent Anti-federalist of all, Patrick Henry, will probably join forces with George Mason, a man who attended the Philadelphia Convention but refused to sign the final document. Together, they look to face down the Federalists. If they succeed, Virginia will not ratify and it will be likely that other States remaining to consider the Constitution will follow her example.
Patrick Henry will take the lead. He has a long history of being a defender of individual, particularly religious conscience, and States rights. He has opposed Madison and Jefferson before; this time he means to pull out all of the stops to prevent what he sees as a usurpation of power from the people. Mason has become surprisingly (one might say, Samuel Adamsish) passive. Madison, having just made the convention, faces the most important task of his life...
As the ratification process turns to South Carolina, it is clear that the Federalists who run the State favor ratification. It was South Carolina, after all, that teamed up with James Wilson to cement the 3/5th's compromise and stuck to the deal as the tides of anti-slavery climbed against it.
But it won't be as simple as that. First, the State Legislature will do something that no other legislature has done - it will openly debate the Constitution "for the sake of informing the country's members" of the reasons why the Constitution should be ratified.
Then there is a second issue. South Carolina. like Massachusetts, is concerned about the lack of religious tests for holding offices. As it turns out, South Carolina has an official religion, one that is traditional but quickly becoming an anachronism.
Lastly, Mr. Rawlins Lowndes rises in opposition to ratification. A Charleston lawyer, he takes upon himself the mantel of speaking for those "less accustomed to public speaking," and he outlines the problems that many in South Carolina have with the overall tone of the Constitution. Which is, of course, the one thing that all of the Southern States, South Carolina most of all, fears the Constitution will do - end slavery.
There is a strong majority anti-Federalist sentiment in the State, and indeed, there are many in South Carolina who believe that the State should "go it alone" rather than remain joined to the Union. It is Charles Cotesworth Pickney who puts a final rest to that political heresy.
When South Carolina votes to ratify, it is over the objections and the will of the people of the State. but it is the eighth pillar to be raised in the new government...
Over the course of the Convention, Luther Martin (Maryland) had been a petulant opponent of the plan and an irritant to pretty much everybody there - even those who agreed with him. Now that his State, Maryland, is taking up ratification, he will continue to adamantly and vociferously oppose the Constitution. He is the very embodiment of the Anti-Federalists.
Pretty much nobody will listen to his ranting, and Maryland will easily vote to ratify.
It's what happens after that is so fascinating to me. Because of our own historical myopia, we tend to only see the good and heroic sides of the Framers and Founders. We don't relate to them as people just like us, facing difficulties and crises. Consequently, we don't learn from their example of how to deal with and even overcome those difficulties.
The rest of Luther Martins' life will be spent in various pursuits as a lawyer - including defending Aaron Burr against charges of treason - and in the bottle. But by 1807, he will be called, "The Federalist Bulldog," by no less than Thomas Jefferson. What drives a man who is virulently anti-Federalist to change his mind? Was it the ultimate "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em?" Or did Luther Martin discover something about human nature in his later years?
As momentum builds for ratification, the two biggest States, New York and Virginia are hesitating.
New York is seemingly against ratification, but as the pillars of the needed nine States continue to fall, the debate intensifies. With their convention not scheduled to begin for several weeks, the debate moves into the Social Media of the day - the newspapers.
First, New York papers take up the Anti-Federalist cause by publishing the DeWitt Letters, the Letters from a Federal Farmer, the Cato, and Brutus letters, but they also begin to pick up a series of equally anonymous letters written specifically to the people of New York and signed simply, Publius.
These particular letters will become known as "The Federalist Papers," and they are not - despite common misconception - a "commentary on Federalist Papers Facebook the Constitution." They are in fact, a reasoned and direct defense of the Constitution as written and a statement of what the Federalists believed would be the benefits of ratification of the Constitution.
But the really amazing thing to think about when we consider all of these letters is how the people of New York (and the rest of the country) consumed them. It's quite an odd foreshadowing of a more modern phenomenon with which we ourselves are very familiar, #socialmedia...
After "impartial discussion & full consideration," the Massachusetts delegates to their State ratifying Convention agreed to what became known as the "Massachusetts Compromise." This allowed a number of anti-Federalists, including Samuel Adams, to vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution. But it wasn't a cut and dried, full-throated endorsement of the document. As the compromise agreed, many of the Anti-Federalist ideas worked their way into the ratification document as proposed amendments to the Constitution.
Many of their recommended amendments are easily recognized by us today, and some made their way into the proposed Bill of Rights when the 1st Congress finally convened. Some of the ideas were ultimately rejected, but there is one overriding idea that we must keep in mind when considering these ideas: all of them came from people who did not like the Constitution as proposed.
As intriguing as what the Massachusetts Convention recommended is what the did not include in their list of proposed amendments. Did they leave out some of the most treasured rights because they assumed the States would and could protect them or did they presume that the proposed Federal Government would never try to stifle free speech or religion?
In early 1788, a Weston, Massachusetts newspaper reported that "Little else, among us, is thought or talked of, but the new Constitution." The debate seemed to engross the attention of all classes of people, including women, who normally would be excluded from politics.
But as Massachusetts debates, the fate of the Constitution is as yet, undetermined.
If Massachusetts ratifies, it is likely that the Constitution will be adopted. But if not, it seems that New York, Virginia will most likely follow their example.
The debates have consumed Americans of all political and social divisions. for the first and perhaps only time in her history, the level of political engagement is nearly one hundred percent. Even former Loyalists have and interest in the Constitution being ratified, as it would mean they would finally receive their long ago promised compensation.
But no longer will States simply approve the Constitution in quick and easy conventions. In Massachusetts, where the Revolution really began, the life or death of the Constitution will face it's first real test among the States.
Connecticut's path to ratification was decidedly more smooth than some of the other States. While there would be debate, and the final vote would not be unanimous, the entire process reflected the character of Connecticut in a way that perhaps no other process had. Certainly not the Revolution, which at one point during the Convention, had seen a delegate accuse Connecticut of being less than wholehearted in her efforts to support the Patriot cause.
Overshadowing Connecticut's debate, the Federalist Papers turn away from the subject of the problems with the Confederacy and the ills that face the nation and the need for union, to the more detailed arguments as to why certain provisions in the proposed Constitution are so important and, consequentially, beneficial to the nation.
The Anti-Federalists naturally turn to those same provisions as dangers to the liberties of the people.
So who is right? Can both sides be? How can something, like a standing army, be both a danger and a necessity?
By the summer of 1787, George, the youngest and smallest (population size) State, seemingly had very little to offer to the nation and needed a great deal of help to deal with her problems, many of which could be described as more or less self-produced.
The biggest problem was Georgia's indifference towards... well... pretty much everything, including defending herself, first against the British and now against the hostile tribes on her borders and territory. And while her participation in Congress had been spotty at best, she had managed to send four delegates to the Convention.
Now, in very late 1787 - December 25th, to be exact, Georgia's leaders gathered to debate ratification of the Constitution. For her, it was more a matter of what was to be gained, than what could be lost. And when the New Year finally rolled in, Georgia kicked it off by officially ratifying the Constitution.
In late 1788, Pennsylvania was, without a doubt, the most culturally, religiously and politically diverse State in the Union. It was also the one State that managed to spend most of the preceding decade disenfranchising most of its own citizens as a small powerful, anti-British, anti-Quaker minority ruled the State politically and used that power to maintain its base. It was only in 1786 that laws had been repealed that allowed the ouster of the political minority from power.
Now, just two years later, the State delegates meet in the same room where the Constitution had been forged to debate whether or not Pennsylvania would follow Delaware's lead and ratify the document. Unlike Delaware, in this room sat men who adamantly opposed the Constitution, and interestingly enough, had recently been removed from power in the State.
Over the few weeks of debate, the fight in Pennsylvania moved out of the State Hall, and into the media of the day - newspapers and pamphlets. And whoever won that, would win the ratification debate.
Our story today begins in the office of a prominent Wilkes-Barre citizen, who supports the ratification of the Constitution. On his desk, given to him by another, a perhaps more prominent citizen of the city, are pamphlets that present a Federalist, pro-constitution view of the matter, with instructions to distribute the pamphlets throughout the city. But Ebenezer doesn't like the fact that the pamphlets contain rebuttals to arguments against the Constitution. He fears that if the good people of Wilkes-Barre read these, they will discover that there are cogent arguments against the Constitution. And so, he hits upon an idea...
The first State conventions in Pennsylvania and Delaware are called to debate the proposed Constitution. While Pennsylvania will actually debate, and question the wisdom of proceeding sans Bill of Rights, Delaware's internal issues and her external debates with the other States, have put her in a unique position. Of the thirty delegates who will be elected to her Convention, all thirty will favor ratification, even those men from Sussex County, which polls show is adamantly against ratification.
For years, Delaware had led the fight for equal representation. Both in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, and in the new Senate. And it is at Delaware's insistence and with her support that the proposed Constitution offers that equal representation in the new Senate.
Internally, Delaware is racked by violence and constant bickering between the Whigs and the Tories, but unlike her neighbor, Pennsylvania, both of Delaware's political movements want the Constitution ratified. It's more an argument of who will get credit for it than it is whether or not they should ratify the Constitution.
As Pennsylvania hesitates, Delaware ratifies the Constitution and become "The First State" of the new Federal Republic.
Breaking both the timeline and the 4th Wall, the debate of religion and government in the United States has taken on a new and particularly partisan tone in recent days, as the Nation tries to decide what to do about the Syrian Refugee problem. Oddly enough, the debate has taken on a religious tone, as some say that "as Christians" we must accept the refugees, while others say that we must not. Scripture is quoted to both support and defy the idea of bringing in the refugees.
But as Dave so often says, people do not change. They do the same things for the same reasons usually with the same results, throughout history. Indeed, as we have already seen, they even have the same arguments.
As the debate over debate the ratification of the Constitution continued, one of the ideas bubbled to the surface - religion, and the lack thereof in the proposed Constitution came to the front and center. But you might be surprised as to who was on which side of things, and why. And how it shows that all these centuries later, we are still debating the same questions as those who debated the ratification of the Constitution.
John DeWitt issues his second letter, in which he begins to get to the details of issues over which he is concerned about the proposed Constitution. Later, Hamilton, writing as Publius, will answer the objection to the lack of the Bill of Rights in Federalist #84.
But both arguments should remind us of one important historical fact: that the Bill of Rights was, in essence, given to us by people who objected to the general functions of the proposed Constitution.
Even today, on a College Campus in Columbia, MO, we see what is, in effect, the exact same argument from all those years ago. Should there be a central basically unrestrained government with the power to command the citizenry, or should that strong central government have limits placed upon it to protect precious rights which are necessary for liberty?
The answer to us today seems clear. We venerate and honor our Bill of Rights. But the argument isn't always so clear cut, and the issue not always... black and white...
As he closes the 2nd Federalist Paper, Publius appeals to the words of the poet to remind Americans that all of our greatness, all that we have achieved and could yet be, will be erased if we reject Union.
The arguments take on a more philosophical tone, between classic republicanism and what each side believes is the best definition of that term, and what is the best way to achieve the singular goal of Union to protect individual rights, liberties, and the survival of the Nation?
In the study of the Constitution, we begin to realize that our long-held beliefs about what the Framers thought best, might not match up with what they themselves told us they believed. It should not change or passion, or even necessarily our positions. But it should remind us that Union is still the only way to achieve what we can be as a Nation.
That we must join, or die.
By the end of October 1787, the two sides in the debate had been clearly delineated. There were those who were opposed to the Constitution, and there were those who favored it.
Those opposed, the Anti-Federalists, as they would become known, had been first to publish their ideas with the first two DeWitt letters. But even as the second hit the papers, the first pro-constitution article appeared. It was addressed to the People of the State of New York and signed by the pen name Publius, one of four men who overthrew the monarchy and established the Roman Republic in 509 b.c.e.
Over the coming months, many more pro-constitution, or "Federalist Papers" would be written. Their purpose was clear - to convince the people of the State of New York, and by extension, the entire country, to favor ratification of the Constitution.
A writer takes on the old Dutch moniker to make his point about the proposed Constitution
The Convention is over, and the delegates disperse home. George Washington can hardly wait to get out of town and on his way back to Mt. Vernon. He is so anxious to leave, that it almost costs him his life.
The issue is now before the States to decide. Ratification and Union or reject the proposed Constitution and try to go it alone or in small groups.
As the process begins, the Congress of the United States takes up the debate first. Should they approve of the draft Constitution? Or has it gone too far?
Two opposing ideologies will coalesce around the debate. One Conservative and liberty-minded. The other, radical and focused on a much different - and much bigger - goal. Can only one succeed and push the other into the pages of history?
Or is there yet still room for compromise?
Over the course of the convention, Gouvernor Morris has lost every single debate, discussion, argument, and point. It would be hard to find any single man who had a less successful direct influence on the direction of the debates. Everything that he wanted or stood for in the new government had been defeated.
Now, as the work draws to its close, the convention turns to the one man in whom they have the utmost confidence to stitch together the final document.
And that man is Gouvernor Morris.
When all is said and done, it is Ben Franklin who rises to the moment. His words of self-sacrifice and putting the nation ahead of oneself ring in our hearts even today. And most of all, lets us astonish our enemies.
As the convention reaches the end of the first week of September, it seems, at least on the surface of things, that all their work is about to come undone. Luther Martin is convinced that the only way the American people will agree to this Constitution is to be hurried into it by surprise. Edmund Randolph of Virginia declares that yet another full convention be held - AFTER the states are given the opportunity to make amendments to the draft.
It seems like there is a movement to undo all that has been done.
What is left to hold the Convention together? Two men. Perhaps the only two men in all of American history to whom every citizen will listen...
As August fades into September, General Washington is feeling pretty upbeat about how things are going. At least one delegate believes that they will be done "i9n three weeks time." Others aren't so ready to finish things without getting their say. Every attempt to resolve the matter of the Presidency is met with an objection and a move to delay.
Soon enough, the Committee on Postponed Parts will have their hands full trying to resolve everything that has been postponed.
In the meanwhile, the Convention seems to, for the first time, consider why a new form of Government is needed, beyond the Randolph outline of so many weeks ago. The principles that underlie the nation are Life, Liberty, and Property. There is a general realization that a stronger central government is the best guarantee of those. watching what is happening in Rhode Island has convinced them that left to themselves, the States will not provide those protections.
With that in mind, the Delegates take up the Judiciary and the power of the States over commerce, money, and contracts. They believe that the federal government's control of these items, among others, will provide the best guarantee of Life, Liberty, and Property.
Today, we debate and discuss the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which may, depending on how you read it, gives the President the authority to make war, while Congress has not declared a war. Oddly enough, the delegates had exactly the same debate, which is why the Constitution gives Congress the power to DECLARE war and the expected the President to MAKE war... as long as the people approved...
Needing a bit of a break, most of the Delegates headed down to the shore of the Delaware River to take a ride on a steamship. Yes... a steamship. Twenty years before anybody ever heard of Robert Fulton. Is it possible that little adventure helped them to empower Congress to "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts?"
Roughly a hundred years after the convention, Otto von Bismark will develop his political maxim of the "realpolitik." He could have learned it from Rutledge, who, in response to Luther Martin's call to accept the immorality of slavery, reminds the Convention that IF there is to be a Union, it WILL be with slavery. And if there is a Union WITH slavery, non-slave States... will make a whole lot of money...
Getting started on Rutledge's' draft of the Constitution, some members noticed that there are some very odd things contained in the document. Rufus King of Massachusetts can keep quiet no longer. He has agreed to things so far because he believes that a strong central government must emerge from the Convention. But what he sees on paper now, is a nation divided by avarice and slavery. Either what Rutledge has written must change or the three-fifths must be eliminated. He won't say the word, but the room senses he means abolition.
Gouverneur Morris has no such limits. He will rail once more, passionately and deeply about the evils and morality of slavery.
The Convention listens, then gets down to work. Realizing that the entire room is unwieldy and that the best and fastest work gets done in committee, they form several such groups, including, the committee on all the stuff we forgot or are too busy to work on...
As the Delegates return from their vacation, so does the summer heat. Sitting down to work, they begin to read and digest the draft that Rutledge of South Carolina has put together while they were gone.
There are many points of contention, but also many points of agreement.
One agreement is that they are moving too slowly and that the nation is growing impatient.
Despite the progress, there remains much to be done. James Madison feels that the work could take many more months. Washington and most of the other delegates know that they do not have that much time.
The first solution offered is to work longer days.
From 10am until 4pm with no changes to the schedule now allowed.
With the new plan in place, they take up the qualification for electors.
Should property ownership be considered? The draft of the Constitution says that it should not be considered, but some, like Gouverneur Morris, vehemently disagree.
After some "housekeeping" about what is going on with Dave, the discussion moves to the idea of who and what makes a "Hero?"
We begin with a picture of a Soldier in Vietnam. What can we glean from the picture? Is he a "War Hero?"
The ancient Greek ideals of heroes are useful, but they have been modified in the modern era with the addition of an element that the Greeks did not specifically consider. In modern interpretations "morality" has become as big an element as the Greek Element of facing mortality.
Dave shares four of his own personal "War Hero's," including his Grandfather and friend. A listener shares his story of how his Father became his hero.
We close with the death of the Solider in the picture and ask the question, is he a "War Hero?"
The small States have won their battle for Equal representation in what will become the Senate. The Slave States have held on to their three fifth's compromise. For now, the Convention will move another element of the plan, the Presidency.
Ideas of how he should be elected and for how long dominate the discussion. Throughout the discussion, one man cats his shadow over the debates.
Every man in the room knows that the first President under the proposed new government will be the Convention's leader, General George Washington.
To a man, they are happy to know this. What concerns them, and what the controls the debate, is a single question.
Who will be the second man to become President of The United States?
For some weeks, Gouverneur Morris of New York has been absent from the Convention. Now, at the lowest point of the proceedings, he arrives with a single purpose: to derail the 3/5th's compromise. The tensions rise as the Slave States begin to believe that there are those, "within or without doors" who mean to take their slaves away. This will never be acceptable to the Slave States, and indeed, there is at least one non-Slave State that admits that it feels the same way.
The debate boils down to one simple thing, do we unite with slavery, or do we dissolve without it? Morris will attempt to force the latter, but like all others before him, he will fail.
When the dust settles, the Connecticut Compromise passes, and the Convention begins to move forward again.
As tension rise, George Mason of Virginia is a man on the outside. everything he supports is being voted down and he has deep fears about where the convention is headed. As others walkout in protest and disgust, Mason decides that he cannot do that.
He makes a promise to the rest of the remaining delegates
As the Convention prepares to adjourn for the Independence Day holiday, there is a great deal of anger and frustration in the room. Luther Martin expresses it best when he says that the convention hangs by no more than the width of a human hair.
To move forward, a committee of Eleven is chosen to come up with a compromise plan to present after the break.
Dr. Benjamin Franklin will lead the committee, which - over the objections of Madison and Wilson - is stacked with small State supporters.
Can he get them to agree on a compromise that will please both the convention and the nation, which is waiting with great expectations to celebrate the new government and the Independence Day holiday?
The stage is set for the celebration, as Washington sits for a portrait and speeches extol the glory of Independence day. But the Delegates must surely be worried about letting everybody down if they fail...
Since June 11th, the Convention has been stuck on one question - will the representation in the proposed senate be equal (one state, one vote), or proportional?
But now, the debates are becoming personal. James Madison will stoop to personal insults. Gunning Bedford (Delaware) will threaten to seek a foreign alliance. And Luther Martin will annoy everybody with his three-hour screed about States Rights and his body odor.
Through it all, General Washington knows that those he believes to be demagogues are on the verge of destroying everything.
When the dust settles on Monday, July 2, 1787, one more vote will be taken on the matter. This time, if the small States lose, the Convention will almost certainly break up. But how can they win? The numbers arrayed against them are too strong and too committed to the big State ideal of proportional representation.
There is not even a prayer that they can prevail, or at least... not lose again. There doesn't seem to be any chance of saving the convention or avoiding the feared destruction of The United States of America.
With the clock ticking to the Independence Day celebrations, Ben Franklin will remind the delegates, that if He cares about the sparrow, that without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel..."
Two days after the Committee of the Whole accepts the 3/5th's Compromise and adds another four resolutions to the Virginian's Plan, it is now clear that the Virginian's mean to abolish the Articles of Confederation and establish a new government based on the principles of liberty and freedom. This presents a difficult moral challenge to them as a group and represents the apex of their ideas presented at the Convention.
New Jersey steps up with an alternate plan, which, like the Virginia Plan promises to fix and improve the Articles of Confederation, but unlike the Virginia Plan, actually does. Now comes the moment that the two plans are laid before the Convention, debated, and it is decided to pursue one and abandon the other. But which plan will go forward?
As the Convention prepares to call for the vote, one ma, New Yorker, Alexander Hamilton, stands to have his say. He will speak for the entire day, and he will come to rue this day...
NOTE: At one point Dave refers to Hamilton being on the $20 Bill. Obviously he meant the $10 Bill...
The Virginian's introduce their plan for a new National Government, which officially shocks the Convention since they believed (officially) that they were there only to revise and amend the Articles of Confederation.
The Convention adjourns to the Committee of the Whole - which is the same people, in the same room with the same purpose as the Convention but without General Washington sitting on the dais. So who is in charge of the discussion and debates that will begin with the Virginia Plan and end up with what we know so well as our Government?
He was the 14th President of the United States, and he died in disgrace and failure. But for the moment, he is the man who is so well respected that he is chosen to lead the Committee of the Whole in its important work. His name is Nathaniel Gorham.
He will control the discussions of The Virginia Plan, the New Jersey Plan (and eventually the Connecticut Compromise) in the first days of the Convention.
As the first couple of weeks of the Convention drone on, the debates become very heated. Perhaps best described as "frank, bordering on direct." The small States, led by New Jersey's Attorney General William Paterson, attack the idea of proportional representation as destructive to them.
It is now that we discover that the great debates of our time, are the same debates of the Convention. Is it to be "One Man=One Vote?" Or will each State have equal representation in the proposed government?
When it seems that there is an impasse, it is James Wilson of Pennsylvania, along with South Carolina's Pickney and Rutledge, who hammer out the compromise which so many have proclaimed a "Faustian Bargain," the 3/5th's Compromise.
The Convention finally gets underway. First things first, rules have to be established and agreed upon. Then the business of reforming the Government can get rolling. The first presentations take on the problems the nation confronts, including the biggest danger facing America.
The local Newspapers want a story, and somebody, just who isn't exactly clear, is giving them one.
George Wythe and his rules committee approve two special rules that will serve to ensure secrecy and flexibility.
To say that General Washington was angry would have been the understatement of the century. He was as close to losing his legendary cool as he had been since the war ended, and with his personal reputation on the line, he circulated the parties and dinners of Philadelphia's social network. He faced a barrage of questions about the rumors swirling through the City. "Do you mean to destroy the government?"
The source of the rumors was the discovery that the Virginia delegation was meeting in secret each day as they waited for the rest of the delegates to arrive, to refine a plan that James Madison had written to do just that. Was this... treason?
Of bigger concern, the small States were horrified that Virginia meant to swallow them up, through "addition, division, or impoverishment." The call went out as a letter was dispatched to John Dickinson of Delaware. He would arrive in time to fight to save the small States...
Today, May 14th is the 228th Anniversary of the Date set for the Constitutional Convention to begin in Philadelphia.
The American Democracy, founded on the ideas of the God-given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, was now on trial before the entire world. Anxious empires awaited the outcome of the Convention with their eyes on what would be left to take, should the Americans fail to restore good government, and end up going their separate ways. The Philadelphia convention did not get off to a prompt start, as heavy rains had turned every road into the city to rivers of mud. By the assigned starting date, only eight delegates had arrived. It was an inauspicious beginning to the last-ditch attempt to save the United States of America.
Today we begin our look at the Convention itself. For the next few months, we will take a look at what happened at the Convention in the previous week. What was debated and discussed. We will meet the fifty-five men who wrote our Constitution, starting with one Daniel St. Thomas Jennifer of Delaware.
Two rebellions, the first in the 1760 and the second in the 1780’s lead to the Constitutional ideas of Establishing Justice and Insuring Domestic Tranquility
"The 1st Amendment protects citizens from the government when they exercise their speech and press rights. So was it "free speech” or "creating a hostile learning environment,” when the President of the University of Oklahoma expelled two students for what they sang on a bus? And when a local man rips down a neighbors offensive house decorations, is it protected?
"What is the opposite of "slavery?"
It's not actually "freedom." The Founders weren't fighting for freedom, they fought for Liberty. So what is the difference?
The prohibitions contained in the Constitution allowed for the abolition of all forms of slavery, by prohibiting ex post facto laws, enshrined the writ of habeas corpus and prohibited Titles of Nobility. In all, these things did more to secure and protect liberties than anything that was contained in the State Constitutions under the Confederacy."
By 1786, the United States were on the brink of utter destruction as a nation. The government had no way to raise money, no way to defend the borders, and no way to protect individual rights. Armed insurrection was a real threat, and armed invaders stood ready to pounce on whatever was left. The Philadelphia Convention was more than just "fixing” the government. It was, quite literally, the last chance for the American dream. In the Preamble, we see how the Convention proposed to save the nation, what it would accomplish and it took a direct aim at those who would support the fatally flawed government already in place.
(Editors note: We apologize for the excessive background noise. Ben was home from school today, and he was just wound up and wasn’t going to calm down for anything. This 45-minute podcast took nearly six hours to record, but we powered through it and got it done as best we could…)
When the Massachusetts Convention gathered in early January 1788 to consider ratification of the Constitution, the state faced three hurdles to ratification.
First, the lingering suspicion and distrust of a central government from the western part of the State when just two years before, Shay's Rebellion had shaken the nation. The western part of the State saw the Constitution as little more than a larger form of the same government that had suppressed their rights and demanded their hard currency, and strongly objected to the idea that Congress would be able to tax and that only gold and silver could be used to pay debts.
The Second problem was Maine. At the time, Maine was part of Massachusetts, and because of its physical separation had often felt both neglected and treated as second class by the Boston mercantile class. Furthermore, Maine had staunch loyalist leanings during both the Revolutionary war, and would again during the War of 1812. It was assumed by most people that Maine wanted to separate from Massachusetts, but that the proposed Constitution made it virtually impossible to do so since Massachusetts would have to give its consent to do so. But like many assumptions about both people and the Constitution, this turned out to be the least of the Federalist's worries.
The third, and potentially the greatest hurdle to Massachusetts' ratification was Sam Adams. He had made it clear that he saw in the Constitution, not a protection of the sovereignty of the States in a federal union, but instead, a national government, which he was certain would crush the rights so recently and so difficultly won. Despite his "open-mouthed" opposition to the Constitution, he was elected as a delegate by Boston, which supported the ratification.
As Henry Knox informed General Washington, 2/7th's of Massachusetts were "insurgents" who had supported Shays, 2/7th's was Maine which opposed the ratification on their own grounds. Leaving only 3/7th's to try and carry the Constitution and try and make Massachusetts the 6th State to ratify...
In Yuba City, a Sikh man is told that he cannot serve as a juror as long as he refuses to remove his kirpan, a symbol of deep meaning and religious devotion to baptized Sikhs. This raises the question: Is there a "right" to serve on a Jury?" Does the need for public safety outweigh religious freedom? And what does it teach us about the jury system?
The Supreme Court issues several rulings in which the LPOV crew are particularly interested, including search warrants for cell phones, free speech and religion and the Recess Appointments made by the President.
After a two year investigation, the Kaleys found themselves essentially destitute when the Government indicted them and froze all of their assets. The resulting case asked the question as to whether or not an ex parte forfeiture order based on the Grand Jury’s actions violates the 6th Amendments protections. In this version of Kaley v United States, the LPOV debates and discusses the merits and disadvantages of the Criminal Grand Jury and asks what we can learn about the process going forward.
Does money donated to a political candidate or cause equal free speech?
The McCutcheon ruling from the Supreme Court opens a lot of questions and a great argument between Pat and Jeff about whether or not money is speech and what - if anything - can be done to limit its corruptive influence. Dave, Jeff & Pat look at the ruling and free speech in political cash
On May 4, 1970, the nation was shocked by the Kent State Shooting. Dave asks the question, how do we as a free society - or any free society - move from a belief in the freedoms protected by the 1st Amendment to the reality of placing (in some cases) severe limits on those freedoms. Dave, Pat, and Jeff discuss the issue and look at the lessons of freedoms from around the globe contrasted to the United States of America.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress…. Article V
Led by the State Legislature of Georgia, the calls for an Article V Convention are becoming more and more common, but is such a State called Constitutional Convention even possible today? And even if it happened, would it accomplish anything? And if the problems are obvious, why did the Framers even put the clause allowing the States to call a convention in the Constitution in the first place?
In Los Angeles, a man is suspected of several crimes. When the Police reach his apartment and knock, a woman answers the door and gives the LAPD permission to enter, even as he shouts that they cannot. Previous rulings hold that the Police can enter under that circumstance, but that's when things get weirder and turn even more L.A...
Dave, Jeff, and Pat look at the 4th Amendment and the Fernandez ruling
The Peruta ruling on the California Law requiring a person to "show good cause” has a great deal of local impact as one local Sheriff requires "good moral character” in addition to showing good cause. Dave, Jeff, and Pat on the 2nd Amendment and the ruling
Free Speech -Members of The Insane Clown Posse and their fans file a lawsuit alleging violations of their 1st Amendment rights to be jerks. Or something like that, anyway. The backdrop is the "firing” and rapid "un-firing” of Phil Robertson after he expressed his own opinions. Dave, Pat, and Jeff look at the 1st Amendment and speech.
1st Amendment Establishment of Religion - When a long-standing monument is accused of being an establishment of religion, the court cases start flying and the counter-accusations begin to mount up. Dave, Pat, and Jeff look at The 1st Amendment and Religion
1st Amendment Introduction - The NSA might be the only Department in the Government that actually listens to the people, but they have absolutely no sense of humor about it at all. Does the 1st Amendment give us the right to make fun of them? Dave, John, Pat the Lawyer and Chatroom Jeff kick off the Saturday Podcast of Constitution Thursday
Constitution Thursday (and Afternoons Live) comes to an end as Dave recaps four years of Constitution Thursday and looks to the future
Despite the proposed Constitution's positives, there were those who argued that it would be a mistake to adopt such a government. They were the "Anti-Federalists," and they included many well known Patriots. Dave & John look at the Anti-Federalist Arguments against the Constitution
Despite what some believe, the actual purpose of the Constitution was to preserve the Union. Without it, none of the social ills or problems would have been solved. Without Union, the nation would not survive. Article VII bears the signatures of some of the greatest men who ever lived who attest to the idea that together we are stronger.
Article VI of the US Constitution says that the Constitution is the supreme law. What does that mean? Dave & John look at Article VI
During the Civil War, Texas decides to sell the bonds they got from the US Government when they became a State. The problem is that the Governor refused to sign off on the idea, and the bonds didn't really belong to the Confederate Government in Texas. Dave & John trace the bonds and the relationships between the States and the Federal Government in Article V of the US Constitution
The admission of a new State into the Union is an exciting moment. Unless, you happen to be in the middle of a Civil War, and the State in question is being carved out of another State which may.. or may not... have given its permission. Dave & John look at the adding of new States tot he Union and Article IV Section3 &4
Long before Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a city bus, Irene Morgan took her bus ride across State lines and into civil rights history and helped change the nation. Dave and John learn about her bus trip as they look at Article IV Section 2
An inventor runs into some issues between the jurisdictions of at least two States. Dave & John delve into Article IV Section 1 to see how this is all supposed to work out.
Dave & John continue their look at Article III and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government. When a stripper turned nightclub owner gets her money taken away, what will the Courts do?
Dave & John start their look into Article III of the US Constitution and the Judicial Branch of the Federal Government
The treaty power and relationship between the Senate and the President
Dave & John take a look at Article 2 and Treaties with other nations
The new President, Gerald R. Ford, pardons the old President, Richard M Nixon. Thirty-nine years later, Dave & John take a look at Article 2 Section 2, Opinions and Pardons
The LPOV takes the show on the road to the VFW Hall in Turlock to have the show in front of a live audience.
An anonymous tip leads the stopping, searching and subsequent arrest of two men in California. Later the Supreme Court will take up the question as to whether or not an anonymous tip is sufficient probable cause to have stopped the truck, leading to the search and the arrest? Moreover, if the Court says that it is, what is the long-range effect on American Society? A live audience means questions and interactions!
Bonus 2013 Episode
Dave & John take a detour into the 5th Amendment and your right to remain silent
The authority to declare war
Dave & John explore the War Powers of the Commander and Chief in Article 2 Section 2
A look at the citizenship requirements for becoming President...
Dave & John look at the issue of who is eligible to be President
The process for electing the President was, like most things, a compromise...
Dave & John look at the process to elect a President
President Richard Nixon, defending against the growing scandal of Watergate, has his lawyer argue before the Supreme Court that he is a man who is as powerful as King Louis XIV...
Dave & John look at the Executive and what its powers were intended to be versus what they have become in Article 2 Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.
Even as the Constitutional Convention is meeting in Philadelphia, the fallout from one of the "causes" of it is reaching its tragic conclusion. Captain Henry Gale is a hero of the Revolutionary war. But he is also one of the leaders of last year's Shay's Rebellion. For that, he has been sentenced by the State of Massachusetts to death by hanging. As he languishes in jail, there is seemingly no hope.
The great question is whether or not a man who fought for Independence, and then rebelled against his home State when it denied those rights and freedoms for which he fought, should be executed or rewarded? The state of Massachusetts has had its say. The Convention will not finish in time and even if it does, it won't be ratified until long after Captain Gale has hung.
The tension is building. did we win our freedom from Great Britain only to have it replaced by State Governments? Who will speak for the condemned man?
Is this what the United States has become just five years after the end of the war?
What will the Convention do as it considers the powers it wants to bestow on the new Government?
=====================================================================================================================================
General rated as the BEST episode of Constitution Thursday, it is based on the marvelous book, Shays' Rebellion: The Hanging of Co-Leader, Captain Henry Gale, by Lisa Saunders, a descendent of Henry Gale. It is, without a doubt, one of the most amazing stories I have ever read and I cannot recommend the book highly enough. -ȸ
The Cornerstone of Republican Government is found in the writings of Alexander Hamilton, as he describes that cornerstone in Federalist 84 as having the "establishment of the writ of habeas corpus, the prohibition of ex-post-facto laws, and of TITLES OF NOBILITY."
The Framers of the US Constitution were very familiar with the history of the English Civil war. It profoundly influenced their efforts in drafting the Constitution.
The English Civil war sets the stage for the Framers to outline how to handle export duties, Port preferences, and Appropriations. Dave & John look at Article 1 section 9
The debate of the Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act (CISPA) leads to a look at the Constitutional system for Direct Taxes
The CISPA law has many people on edge and Dave & John have questions about it and direct taxes as outlined in the Constitution Article 1 Section 9
Bonus episode - A bong smoking lesbianish Republican gets outed. But is it really what should have happened?
A GOP Politician gets into hot water when she is outed smoking a bong, kissing a girl and liking it. But what about that there 1st Amendment? Dave & John take a look at the matter
Is there such as thing as "reasonable restriction" on gun ownership? Dave, Pat & Jeff look at the restrictions on the 2nd Amendment
Article 1 Section 9 has been described as the foundation of the Bill of Rights
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
John Van Zandt helped slaves to escape from their masters. That said, he was eventually sued by a slave owner, and after the case made its way to the Supreme Court, it was upheld that the Government had to protect slaveowners from what it saw as theft of personal property...
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
Thought the internet has failed them, and it is also Wednesday, Dave & John take a look at the civil rights struggles and how the Constitution led to equal rights.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
McCullough v Maryland helped to define the relationship between the powers of Congress and the separate States.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
Led by the State Legislature of Georgia, the calls for an Article V Convention are becoming more and more common, but is such a State called Constitutional Convention even possible today? And even if it happened, would it accomplish anything? And if the problems are obvious, why did the Framers even put the clause allowing the States to call a convention in the Constitution in the first place? Dave, Pat, and Jeff look at an Article V Convention
IRS official Lois Lerner goes to Congress again in the investigation of the IRS scandal, and she takes the 5th Amendment. But can a Government Official, presumably acting in the name of the Government, claim that the Government is not going to cooperate with the Government when the Government is investigating the Government? Dave, Jeff & Pat look at the 5th Amendment and ask, does self-incrimination apply when the government is investigating itself?
How taxes and representation are determined
Dave & John begin the look at the Powers of Congress, including taxation
I'm just a bill, yes I'm only a bill, and I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill...
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
BONUS Episode - the Government would like for you to ignore the Bill of rights and turn your friends in for doing things the Government doesn't like.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
In 1971 the New York Times published The Pentagon Papers, a rather unflattering and counter to the Government narrative of the Vietnam War. It set off a major political and Constitutional debate, which actually started many years earlier...
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
The two houses of Congress have the final authority to establish their rules of operation.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
The balance of power in the House was skewed towards the Southern States, as it had also been under the Articles of Confederation. But the limit of 3/5's also served to slow that power shift toward the South. And it presaged the day when all men would be equal.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
Article 1 establishes the Congress, with the house being first and front...
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
It didn't take very long before the Congress started doing things that didn't seem in keeping with the principles established by the Framers and founders of the nation.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
At the start of things, the Congress was supposed to be the most powerful branch of the government. But it didn't take long before the Congress figured out how to put all the really hard decisions onto the President, thus avoiding any potential consequences for themselves.
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over.
In January of 2013, for Constitution Thursday, Dave & John decided to go back to the beginning and start with the Preamble to the Constitution. In this beginning episode, the boys take a look at the Constitutions Preamble, much like Inigo waiting for Vizzini...
Constitution Thursday was a standard feature of Afternoons Live with Dave & John as heard live weekdays on KFIV and KWSX Modesto/Stockton. starting in 2010, Constitution Thursday became a weekly event, and with John joining the show in late 2012, it was decided to start over. Over the course of nine months, the boys will cover the entire original Constitution with a couple of bonus episodes along the way...
A California Raisin Farmerfaces off against the Department of Agriculture over the taking of his raisins for the governments "Raisin Reserve"
In one of the all-time favorite episodes of Constitution Thursday, Dave and John look at the 4th Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and the need for warrants after a Park Ranger is accused of selling Eagle parts to Native Americans
Dave and John look at the 9th Amendment and the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson
Dave & John talk about the right we have to associate as we see fit, especially in light of Prop 14
Although this is not an "official" episode of Constitution Thursday, this was the moment that Dave and John celebrated Flag Day in one of the best moments of Afternoons Live with Dave & John of all time...
1st Amendment - a Sheriff's race heats up when the incumbent fires a deputy for "liking" his opponents Facebook page