May 22, 2005
Appointment By Committee
Yes, all you Constitution-philes, someone suggested this week that the Senate should submit a list of names to the President from which he can choose judicial appointees. Federalist Paper Number 76, which I have named "President Nominates, Senate Approves, Appointments," explains why appointment-by-committee is a terrible idea.
#76 [paragraphs 4-5]
[4] People who have thought about the subject, or paid attention to observations made in the other papers relating to electing the President, will, I presume, agree there will always be a great probability that he will be a man of abilities, at least respectable. On this premise, Ill put down the rule that one man of discernment can do a better job analyzing the qualities for specific offices than a group of men of equal, or even superior, discernment.
[5] The sole, undivided responsibility of one man will produce a keener sense of duty and regard to reputation. He will feel a stronger obligation and be more interested in carefully investigating the qualities required to fill the offices. And he will impartially prefer the persons who may have the most qualifications.
He will have fewer personal attachments to gratify than a group of men who each may have an equal number. So, he will be much less liable to be misled by friendship and affection. A single, well-directed man cannot be distracted and warped by the diversity of views, feelings, and interests that frequently distract and warp the resolution of a collective body.
Nothing agitates the passions of mankind like personal considerations, whether related to ourselves or others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, every time a group of men exercise the power of appointing to offices, we must expect to see a full display of all private and party likes and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the group. The choice made under such circumstances will be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other or a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will often not be considered.
In the case of a victory of one party over the other, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the partys votes will be more important than the qualifications that fit the person to the job. If a compromise, the coalition will commonly come up with a trade-off: Give us the man we wish for this office, and you can have the one you wish for that. This will usually be the bargain. Public good will rarely be the primary objective of either party victories or party negotiations.
April 25, 2005
Constitution Supplies Option to Senate Filibuster of Judicial Nominations
I love the United States Constitution. I wish that during my many years of schooling I'd had a teacher that loved the US Constitution as much as I do now. This morning, as I head out to do a little traveling, which means I won't be on the internet for a few days, I'm just going to quote a clause in the Constitution.
Section 2: ...[The president] shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur; and shall nominate, and, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law; but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.
April 21, 2005
Current Senate "filibuster" Means that Minority Rules
The Federalist Papers warn us about why requiring a super-majority is dangerous. A little common sense might also work. A super-majority means that the minority rules. In what way does this not resemble a tyranny? Or, at the very least, rule by aristocracy.
April 16, 2005
"Fear" Dooms People, Organizations, Nations
A friend--Hi, JP--and I have been discussing the negative effects fear can produce in a person's life. And the psychological benefits of living without fear. Of course, I don't mean living recklessly. I mean not fearing those 99.9% of things that people worry about that never happen. Or even that pervasive, but undefinable, fog of fear that colors every thought and action.
I maintain that the Federalist Papers covers just about any subject. And it is a great psychology text. I did a quick computer search of my edition of the Papers (the advantage of having the data CD version) and the word "fear" mentioned in 42 Papers. Here's just one example:
The most devoted advocates for [the United States to divide into] three or four confederacies [instead of staying united] cannot reasonably assume they would remain equal in strength, even if it was possible to form them so at first. What human plan can guarantee the equality will continue? Besides local circumstances, which tend to increase power in one part and impede its progress in another, superior policy and good management would probably distinguish one government above the rest. This would destroy the relatively equal strength. It cannot be presumed the same degree of good policy, prudence, and foresight would be uniform among these confederacies for very many years.
Whenever and however it might happen, and it would happen, at the moment when one of these nations or confederacies rise on the scale of political importance above her neighbors, her neighbors would behold her with envy and fear. Because of these passions they would listen to, if not promote, anything that promised to diminish her importance. Jealousy and fear would also restrain them from actions that might advance or even to secure her prosperity. It wouldnt take long for her to discern these unfriendly dispositions. She would soon begin to lose confidence in her neighbors and feel a disposition equally unfavorable to them. Distrust naturally creates distrust. Nothing changes goodwill and kind conduct more speedily than jealousies and imputations, whether expressed or implied. Federalist Paper # 5, paragraph 5-6
This text reminds me of--I can't believe this--yesterday's episode of Dr. Phil. The subject was jealousy. "...her neighbors would behold her with envy and fear. Because of these passions they would listen to, if not promote, anything that promised to diminish her importance. Jealousy and fear would also restrain them from actions that might advance or even to secure her prosperity." This especially describes the feelings of one sister towards her twin sister. And we've all known family, friends, neighbors, and/or acquaintances who so allow fear to rule their lives that they actually feel hatred towards people who have never hurt them.
How does this relate to our nation? It's a quick reminder that no matter what the United States does, much of the world will always hate us. We don't have to do something negative to elicit these feelings against us. As long as the US exists, other nations will hate us.
For those people who believe we have done something in the 20th or 21st century to cause European nations to hate us, here's another quote from the Papers:
Men who are admired as profound philosophers have, in direct terms, attributed to Europe's inhabitants physical superiority. And they have gravely asserted that all animals, including the human species, degenerate in America. Even dogs cease to bark after having breathed our atmosphere for awhile. Recherches philosophiques sur les Americans.Publius
April 15, 2005
I've been meaning to start a blog for months. It's not that I don't have anything to say. And it's not that I don't type a lot of notes into the computer. I just didn't like my former website and then had to figure out how I would get a new one built. So.... here goes.
Jefferson and Separation of Governmental Power
As I've often said, I've never enjoyed studying history and, as a student, I thought that sudying the Constitution was rather pointless. I vaguely remember teachers trying to explain the Constitution when it was obvious that we really didn't follow it anymore. The teachers would use the examples of copyrights, patents, coining money, punishing counterfeiters, and post offices to explain how the Constitution worked. All it did was confuse me. How could some things HAVE to be followed and other parts of the Constitution could be ignored?
I was a high school and college student in the 1960s, so it seemed that free-speach was usually upheld. But if the students who were using their right of free speech damaged private property, the property owners didn't seem to be protected. Instead, the promoters of the destruction were given hero/celebrity statis by much of the media. And I've been surprised to learn that some of them got cushy academic jobs without the usual education and qualifications and are still being paid handsome salaries.
I mention all this because I didn't expect to develop such a high respect for the writers of the Federalist Papers.
But where the protestors of my generation seemed to see the world in two dimensions or in black and white, the authors of the Federalist Papers understood the multi-dimensional behavior of humans and issues. Or they saw the millions-of-colors that we now know that people perceive.
At the same time, they explain why people usually have only a limited view of issues. It is a simple fact of human nature/behavior.
The problem with any society is that over time it will devolve into a tyranny. Even a society that seems to be an anarchy will become a tyranny. And the reasons, once objectively thought about, follow anyone's experience in clubs or organizations.
To counter-act the devolution into tyranny, political scientists came up with the governmental separation of powers maxim. It is during the Federalist Papers's discussion of separation of powers that Thomas Jefferson is mentioned.
Interestingly, I believe he is only one of two Americans mentioned in the Papers. (The other being Shays of Massachusetts.) Remember, the Papers were written anonymously, so there wasn't even a mention of the authors.
And, although the author who mentions Jefferson praises him and his political thoughts, the majority of the discussion about Jefferson is about an idea that wouldn't solve the problem Jefferson addresses.
Separation of powers is part of the Constitution. However, just because it is defined on paper, doesn't mean that politicians and power-seekers won't try to use as much power as they possibly can.
Jefferson proposes using a force outside the governmental structure to keep the branches of the government confined to their constitutional power.
Paper #49 explains why this is ineffective and why the blocks to encroaching power must be an integral part of the government's structure.
I've discovered that, often, when people discuss government they foret that its characteristics are exactly the same as the characteristic of every organization. "But what is government itself but the greatest of all reflections on human nature?" Federalist Paper # 51 [paragraph 4]
So I try to relate the psychological principles found in the Papers to smaller organizations: public, private, religious, charitable, whatever...
Although the federal government was tiny right after the Constitution was written, people forgot to apply the negative psychological aspects of human behavior to the people who would eventually fill the positions of power. Although we can't feel bad when we do the same thing, we must guard against this tendency.
