Christmas Present

Posted on 2008-12-26 by David

My wife surprised me for Christmas this year by giving me a pocket edition of the Constitution (which also contained the Articles of Confederation, the Annapolis Convention, the Massachusetts Bill of Rights, the Virginia Statute on Religious Liberty, and various other documents) – I was very excited. This morning I was at Lowe’s talking with an employee there who asked me what I got for Christmas. When I told her that I got a pocket edition of the Constitution she paused for a second before responding, "Is that what you wanted?"

Sometimes the only thing I would like more than that would be to have the ability to give a copy of the Constitution to every voter who has not already read it.

Posted in life | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Who Should Adopt?

Posted on 2008-12-24 by David

The debate over who should be allowed to adopt a child is a sensitive one. We have a system which tries to provide the best situation to children in need of good families, but there are more children than available families under the current definition. I think it is natural to be skeptical of the idea that we should let unwed partners adopt because that opens a door for some very unstable situations which are not beneficial to the children involved. The gay community (those that are interested in this particular issue) consider this to be discrimination because in this state all gay couples are unwed by definition. Of Rep. Rebecca Chavez-Houck’s "Forever Homes for Every Child" bill Senate President-elect Michael Waddoups accurately identifies the major objection/hurdle by saying:

That sounds like they’re trying to set up a family relationship that under [Utah’s same-sex marriage ban] isn’t allowed. … If we’re going to change the definition of a family, we should do it constitutionally — not through end runs.

Even if this is not intended as an end run around our Constitutional ban on gay marriage it will easily be perceived as such. The proposed bill gives adoption preference for married couples – which respects our value favoring a traditional family structure – but it opens the door for adoption by unwed couples with the consent of the biological parent(s) or if the child is in state custody. I believe that one minor modification the bill would support our value of granting primacy to the institution of family in this state. Simply put – I do not trust the state to make the decision to allow unwed couples to adopt children. If this proposal were changed to allow an unwed person or couple to adopt a child only "with the consent of the biological parent(s) and any legal guardian" I would fully support it.

The couple cited in the article is a biological mother (using a sperm donation) and her partner who are the only family their child has ever known. It makes perfect sense that the partner would be allowed to adopt and naturally the biological mother would grant the necessary consent. This change in the proposal would allow the biological parent(s) to specify one unmarried person or both members of an unwed couple as potential adoptive parents. It would allow the state or an established legal guardian to block such an adoption where the biological parent(s) choice of adoptive parents may be undesirable. Most importantly it would prevent the state from selecting unwed couples or individuals as adoptive parents for children who’s biological parent(s) objects or who do not have biological parents to speak in their defense or grant the necessary consent.

Posted in culture, State | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Federalist Nos. 41 – 43

Posted on 2008-12-23 by David

These papers by Madison cover topics that had previously been addressed by Hamilton in Federalist Nos. 24 – 28, and 30 – 36 (covered here, here, and here).

Federalist No. 41 focuses primarily on the issue of standing armies, Federalist No. 42 concerns issues of foreign relations, law enforcement, and interstate commerce, and Federalist No. 43 addresses further specifics of law enforcement, interstate commerce and other miscellaneous powers specified in the Constitution.

I love this description of the Articles of Confederation from Federalist No. 42:

the articles of Confederation have inconsiderately endeavored to accomplish impossibilities; to reconcile a partial sovereignty in the Union, with complete sovereignty in the States; to subvert a mathematical axiom, by taking away a part, and letting the whole remain.

Federalist No. 43 contains a statement that describes a principle weakness of the United Nations:

Governments of dissimilar principles and forms have been found less adapted to a federal coalition of any sort, than those of a kindred nature.

I do not consider the words of Madison either inferior or superior to Hamilton on these subjects. I do believe that some people would be more swayed by one approach while other people would connect more with the approach of the other.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Human Rights

Posted on 2008-12-19 by David

A post at the Utah Amicus this morning shared a short video based on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The video and the overall message is good, but starting at 2:51 in the video the message departs from the reality of human rights and enters the Utopia of idealism. I think it is important to recognize the difference between the real and the ideal if we are to have any hope of establishing true liberty. Of all the categories which this declaration lists as distinctions which cannot alter basic human rights there is one category which they fail to list which tears some of their "rights" to shreds – placement in history. We have no rights today that were not also the rights applicable to our great grandparents. I do not mean to say that those rights have never been infringed upon, but if we call something a right today which could not have been delivered in all ages of civilization then it is not actually a right.

Those who subscribe to the Conservative/Libertarian philosophy would rightly point out that there is no such thing as gay rights, womens rights, or minority rights of any kind – there are only individual rights. In other words, membership in any group, majority or minority does nto grant any rights that are not equally applicable to those outside the group. The same holds true of responsibilities. Society, nor any group in society, has no responsibilities. Only individuals have responsibilities.

So, while it is nice to say that society has a responsibility to help you develop the truth is that for better or worse society does help you develop. It is the moral responsibility of every individual to encourage those they interact with to develop in a positive way according to their individual capacities. In other words, a teacher can help a child to learn and a police officer can encourage a child to respect the law. The teacher and the police officer may have some influence outside those spheres, but we cannot expect one to fill the role of the other. The real truth is that we cannot expect society to take on any responsibility – we can only expect ourselves to take on any necessary or desirable responsibility (and we can encourage others to do the same).

There is no right to employment – only the right to receive the fruits of your labor. It is the responsibility of others to treat you fairly, but that does not entitle you to a any given job nor does it mean that employers must make work for you. I can appreciate the idea of a right to a fair salary, but I am confident that the meaning of those promoting this Universal Declaration of Human Rights mean a social guarantee of some minimum salary – which is not a right and cannot be enforced without taking away true liberty.

The happy sentiment that each workday should not be too long is completely meaningless. First we must define "too long" and second we must find a way to enforce it. A standard definition of "too long might be 8, 10, or 12 hours per day. Tell that to those who produced their own food on a family farm when an 18-hour workday was little better than subsistence. We no longer live in that age, but it goes to prove that needs, resources, and capacities are outside the control of society and thus the "too long" workday cannot be artificially defined or equitably enforced. The same argument holds true wtih the reference to "a decent standard of living."

The right to go to school was not available in any for for long ages of many societies and that lack had nothing to do with oppression – it had to do with subsistence. I have the right to be treated fairly regarldess of my economic curcumstance, but I do not have the right to go to school when school is not avaliable or when I do not have the capacity to go to school and still meet my real human needs. The same holds true for participation in the arts and sciences of my community.

While it is nice to think about an education that promotes peace and understanding among all people the reality is, again, that this tries to place on society a responsibility that every individual has to treat (and teach others to treat) all people with respect and dignity. Education (meaning public or formal educaiton) should focus on academic disciplines and teach/promote respect and understanding by example more than indoctrination.

In short, there are no group rights or responsibilities. We must each shoulder our responsibilities – which include protecting and respecting the rights of others. Second, real rights are rights regardless of historic reference point. Any right which could not be enforced (as distinct from simply "was not enforced") at all points in history is not a right, no matter how noble or desireable it is.

Posted in culture, life | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Federalist No. 40

Posted on 2008-12-18 by David

It is only very recently that I heard someone express the sentiment that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 exceeded their authority in the Constitution they proposed. I was therefore more interested in reading Federalist No. 40 which addresses this exact question. The conclusion is a resounding dismissal of the charge save in one particular:

In one particular it is admitted that the convention have departed from the tenor of their commission. Instead of reporting a plan requiring the confirmation OF THE LEGISLATURES OF ALL THE STATES, they have reported a plan which is to be confirmed by the PEOPLE, and may be carried into effect by NINE STATES ONLY. It is worthy of remark that this objection, though the most plausible, has been the least urged in the publications which have swarmed against the convention. The forbearance can only have proceeded from an irresistible conviction of the absurdity of subjecting the fate of twelve States to the perverseness or corruption of a thirteenth; from the example of inflexible opposition given by a MAJORITY of one sixtieth of the people of America to a measure approved and called for by the voice of twelve States, comprising fifty-nine sixtieths of the people an example still fresh in the memory and indignation of every citizen who has felt for the wounded honor and prosperity of his country. As this objection, therefore, has been in a manner waived by those who have criticised the powers of the convention, I dismiss it without further observation.

The charge was repeated in the context of lamenting what might happen if a new Constitutional Convention were convened in our day. If that is ever to happen, I only hope that those chosen to attend the convention can use their mandate with as much wisdom to produce a Constitution that is as well-suited to good government as the one we have today.

Personally I think the best single change would be for us to adhere to the Constitution we have.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , | 4 Comments

Federalist No. 39

Posted on 2008-12-17 by David

Federalist No. 39 seems to contain the central argument that is being addressed in the debate over ratifying the constitution:

"But it was not sufficient," say the adversaries of the proposed Constitution, "for the convention to adhere to the republican form. They ought, with equal care, to have preserved the FEDERAL form, which regards the Union as a CONFEDERACY of sovereign states; instead of which, they have framed a NATIONAL government, which regards the Union as a CONSOLIDATION of the States." And it is asked by what authority this bold and radical innovation was undertaken?

It seems that it was commonly assumed that the only proper form of government was a republican form. If we had a new constitutional convention today I would not be surprised if many people felt that the proper form of government would rightly be a democratic form. I believe that the reason for this lies in the distinction between a federal government and a national government:

The idea of a national government involves in it, not only an authority over the individual citizens, but an indefinite supremacy over all persons and things, so far as they are objects of lawful government. Among a people consolidated into one nation, this supremacy is completely vested in the national legislature. (a national government) Among communities united for particular purposes, it is vested partly in the general and partly in the municipal legislatures. (a federal government) In the former case, all local authorities are subordinate to the supreme; and may be controlled, directed, or abolished by it at pleasure. In the latter, the local or municipal authorities form distinct and independent portions of the supremacy, no more subject, within their respective spheres, to the general authority, than the general authority is subject to them, within its own sphere. (my notes added)

As our government has taken on a more national character (as the local levels of government have become more subordinated to the federal government) it is natural for people to want a more direct say in the actions of that general government and thus the assumption of the desireability of a democratic form of government. I worry about this mindset.

The conclusion is that the government formed by the Constitution is a balance of federal and national in form. The proper solution to our national political ills is not to advance further down the misguided path that the founders were studiously avoiding (a democratic form and a national form) but to return to the solution that they so wisely pursued (the republican form balanced between national and federal in character). We need to teach the body politic the virtues of the republican form of government and the virtues of a balance between federalism and nationalism so that they will demand that their government, which is structured  for just that balance, will act as it was designed to act so that their liberty is preserved as it was intended to be.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

Federalist No. 38

Posted on 2008-12-16 by David

It was very interesting to read in Federalist No. 38 that one primary difference between this Constitution and the constitutions of Greece and Athens (among other examples) is that this one was developed by a group instead of being drawn up by a single respected individual.

The bulk of this Federalist paper goes to show how lively and varied the debate was which surrounded the ratification of the Constitution. Warning – this is undoubtedly the longest paragraph in the federalist papers so far with a total length of 1100 words. It is worth the time to read it, but without paragraph breaks it is easy to lose you place in such a long passage. With the advantage of being able to look back it is interesting to see which changes that were being considered were added to the Constitution (e.g. the Bill of Rights) and which were left unchanged (e.g. the 20 year moratorium on discussion the issue of slave importation) by the end of the debate.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Bill of Rights Day

Posted on 2008-12-15 by David

Today is Bill of Rights Day, the day when the Bill of Rights was ratified 217 years ago. This holiday, along with Independence Day and Constitution Day, represents the real celebration of the great country we should be striving to maintain. Interestingly, while Independence Day is the most celebrated of the three our independence did nothing to guarantee any future liberties in this country. Our Constitution was supposed to help preserve our liberties by setting up a government structure that would be capable of securing our liberties from both internal and external forces which would seek to infringe upon them. The structure that was devised could not, in itself, guarantee that the government itself would not be an abuser of liberty – that is where the Bill of Rights comes in. The Bill of Rights spelled out the rights of citizens where the federal government would not be allowed to infringe (in theory). This is where the rubber meets the road. A monarchy with such a bill of rights – where those rights are truly upheld – would be as good a government as the three pronged government that the founders defined in the constitution. The real difference being that a monarchy would more easily overrun the individual rights without the checks in place of an independent judiciary etc.

The original Bill of Rights had 12 amendments adopted by Congress. Numbers 3 – 12 were ratified in 1791. Number 2 was ratified as the 27th amendment in 1992. The first amendment proposed has not yet been ratified.

On this Bill of Rights Day I look with trepidation at a government and society where the first question of government is "What responsibilities can be assigned to the government?" The question should be "How can the government more fully ensure liberty among her people?" The first question brings an intrusive government which attempts to do the impossible. The last question would bring a government which is content to enforce liberty, thus setting the conditions where the society could accomplish greater things than ever before.

Tim Lynch of the  CATO Institute has a great rundown of how our Bill of Rights is faring in modern government. Jim Babka has some ideas about how we can get our government to protect those rights that they are so prone to trample.

Posted in culture, National | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

Federalist No. 37

Posted on 2008-12-12 by David

I really enjoyed Federalist No. 37, it was very interesting to have a paper which began to examine the process of creating the proposed Constitution as opposed to simply looking at the provisions of the Constitution itself. As it specifically recommends moderation and deliberation in our political/civic dialog I think that everyone ought to read this paper.

The other thing that I found interesting was a more pronounced and direct reference to assistance by "the Almighty hand than I have ever noticed before:

The real wonder is that so many difficulties should have been surmounted, and surmounted with a unanimity almost as unprecedented as it must have been unexpected. It is impossible for any man of candor to reflect on this circumstance without partaking of the astonishment. It is impossible for the man of pious reflection not to perceive in it a finger of that Almighty hand which has been so frequently and signally extended to our relief in the critical stages of the revolution. (emphasis added)

I found the closing paragraph to be a helpful reminder as well about the process of politics:

. . . we are necessarily led to two important conclusions. The first is, that the convention must have enjoyed, in a very singular degree, an exemption from the pestilential influence of party animosities the disease most incident to deliberative bodies, and most apt to contaminate their proceedings. The second conclusion is that all the deputations composing the convention were satisfactorily accommodated by the final act, or were induced to accede to it by a deep conviction of the necessity of sacrificing private opinions and partial interests to the public good, and by a despair of seeing this necessity diminished by delays or by new experiments.

Party animosities are a natural companion to the discussions of deliberative bodies. We must ever be seeking to rise above such natural animosities and yet we are nto truly rising above them if we fall to the abandonment of our honest principles. In keeping true to those honest principles we will need to recognize the proper instances when we must accept a compromise.

Posted in General | Tagged , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Federalist Nos. 30 – 36

Posted on 2008-12-11 by David

Federalist 30

Money is, with propriety, considered as the vital principle of the body politic; as that which sustains its life and motion, and enables it to perform its most essential functions. A complete power, therefore, to procure a regular and adequate supply of it, as far as the resources of the community will permit, may be regarded as an indispensable ingredient in every constitution.

We do not seem to recognize the corollary today that excess money, like excess food, leads to gluttany and an unhealthy government.

Federalist 31

I love the direct logic in the opening here. The assumptions are laid out and unless you can dispute the assumptions it is difficult to dispute the conclusion.

IN DISQUISITIONS of every kind, there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasonings [sic] must depend. These contain an internal evidence which, antecedent to all reflection or combination, commands the assent of the mind. . . Of this nature are the maxims in geometry, that "the whole is greater than its part; things equal to the same are equal to one another; two straight lines cannot enclose a space; and all right angles are equal to each other." Of the same nature are these other maxims in ethics and politics, that there cannot be an effect without a cause; that the means ought to be proportioned to the end; that every power ought to be commensurate with its object; that there ought to be no limitation of a power destined to effect a purpose which is itself incapable of limitation. (emphasis added)

I also think it is interesting to note that the idea of the federal government seeking handouts from the states seemed repugnant, but today we see the repugnance of states which are almost entirely financially dependent on the federal government as was warned by the opposing argument that "an indefinite power of taxation in the {federal government} might, and probably would in time, deprive the {state governments} of the means of providing for their own necessities; and would subject them entirely to the mercy of the national legislature."

Federalist 32

It is interesting to see that even where he is wrong (believing that this danger was not real), Hamilton illustrates the very dangers that we face today as the states have almost entirely melted into the background in the face of the federal government.

Federalist 33

I found this to be an insightful and succinct delineation of the difference between laws and treaties:

If a number of political societies enter into a larger political society, the laws which the latter may enact . . . must necessarily be supreme over those societies . . . It would otherwise be a mere treaty, dependent on the good faith of the parties, and not a goverment.

Unfortunately today most of our laws are apparently nothing more than treaties that are being ignored – including the Constitution as a whole (only the form – three branches including a bicameral legislature – remains).

Federalist 34

When Hamilton explains that 93% of the expenses of the British government are dedicated to paying for war, war preparation, and war debts it should open our eyes to the foolishness of our perpetual expansion of our domestic expenses as if we could add increased military expenses when the need arises.

Federalist 35

I was interested in the recognition that representatives would not be elected from different professions in proportion to how those professions were represented in society. There is an inherent degree of inequality dues to the differing demands of different professions. Hamilton argues that those who understand money and financial realities are the best able to produce good government.

Federalist 36

Hamilton makes a passing remark that makes me think twice about the merits of expanding Congress as suggested by Thirty-Thousand.org – a larger body eventually reaches a size where they are unlikely to have any wisdom beyond the general populous – the only real question is what size is that?

Posted in General, life, Local, National, pictures | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments