I’m glad that our country has so few problems that, in order to feel useful, we have a Representative proposing a bill to end the BCS system. I’d hate to think what kind of legislation we would be getting out of such a Congress if we were living in turbulent times with a depressed economy, poor foreign relations, and/or large social issues that fuel the passions of voters (like altering the definition of marriage).
Oh, wait – I guess we get the worst of both worlds right now.
I’m excited to announce today that Becky Edwards has started a blog to keep in contact with her constituents in House District 20. The issue of open communication is one that I talked to Becky and Kyle Roberts about before the election. I’m happy that we now have a representative for our district who is able to communicate with us and have a record of that communication available.
Anyone who is interested in transparency among elected officials should encourage this kind of interaction with their own legislators and with other legislators who are making themselves available online. I want to invite everyone – especialliy residents of district 20 – to participate with Becky as she shares issues with her constituents.
Federalist No. 29 is really a continuation of Nos. 26 – 28. My favorite line from this one is:
To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
This expresses a truth that applies to any “necessary evil” as a standing army is treated to be in many of these papers.
I also have come to appreciate how great and vibrant the debate regarding our form of government was during this period of creating and ratifying the constitution. It makes me all the more respectful of the government that resulted from this document (and all the more desirous to adhere to the original document as much as is reasonable).
These papers encapsulate the central issue being tackled win the constitution – namely the balance of powers between branches of government. Of course these are concerned specifically with the authority to raise a standing army, but the central point is important even today. An insightful question from Federalist No. 26 illustrates how times have changed from then until now.
Is it probable that {collusion between the legislative and executive branches} would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses?
At the time the answer would have been no, but today, with little variation coming from one election to the next the answer is that there is a much higher probability of that happening.
Federalist No. 27 and Federalist No. 28 continue to show that the dangers of centralized control of a standing army are hardly greater than the dangers of individual state control of militias.
As I have been making contacts and working to get more actively involved in party politics I have started to gain a new appreciation for what government by the people really is. When I learned about our government in school I was left with the understanding that government by the people meant that we have the opportunity to elect representatives as well as the opportunity to replace them in subsequent elections. All of that is technically true but I am concluding that government py the people is really government by those who choose to involve themselves in the process. Being an informed voter is important, as I have stressed for a long time, but your vote at the ballot box is too crude a tool to expect to fix problems if you see things in the political system that you would change.
Our freedom of speech is also important, but exposing problems and speeking up is not enough. If you really care about this country and you see things that need to be fixed there is only one way to go about it. You have to roll up your shirtsleeves and dig in to the political dirt if you want to clean something up.
I have been verbose about my desire to see a good mix of the two parties here in Utah and yet when I chose what party to participate in I chose the dominant party. The reason for that choice is that I realized that more important than balance is accountability. I can’t make the Republican party accountable to the people if I am working in the Democratic party. Since all the attractive ideals of the Democratic party (meaning those that are attractive to me) are compatible with the positions of the Republican party I chose to work within the Republican party to ensure (as much as I am able) that the Republican party is being held accountable for the ideals that they espouse.
if there are things you want to see change – get your hands dirty, that’s the real meaning of government by the people.
Presidential Pardons are the responsibility of the President (which is apparently Orrin Hatch in his own mind). Nowhere could I find anything even remotely related to pardons in the official job description of the Senate. I enjoyed a lengthy and well written summary of the situation from Lizzen and so my list of grievances with Senator Hatch is now longer than it was before. I have long argued that the Senior Senator from Utah is not much of a Utah citizen and not much of a conservative representative from our conservative state. Now I have concluded that he is not much of a senator since he seems to think that 32 years of living near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. qualifies him to tell the President who should be getting a Presidential Pardon.
I wish my fellow Utahns would help him to no longer be a Senator for Utah – I’m sure if we did he would be relieved of the burden of pretending to be conservative and I’d bet that he would also quit pretending to be from Utah if he were no longer "representing" the state in his adopted hometown.
I thought the following idea was laughable in light of something I heard recently:
[Charles Tiefer, whom Congress appointed earlier this year to the new Commission on Wartime Contracting, which oversees Pentagon contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan] says, federal employees take an oath to [support and defend] the Constitution, while private contractors are just motivated by their own economic interest. It’s a lovely vision, and apparently some people actually believe it.
Of course David Boaz is rightfully skeptical of that fairytale view of federal employees. I have a friend who used to work for a federal government agency. He told me last week that he recently read the Constitution for the first time – long after he quit working for the government. He did take the oath mentioned above, but did so without ever reading the Constitution despite high school and college educations here in the United States. I am not blaming my friend – he’s hardly unusual in what he did except that now he has read the Constitution.
The idea that federal employees deserve some special trust for taking an oath of office is laughable. Most of those employees (like so many elected officials above them) have never read the Constitution they have sworn to protect in that oath. How can we expect them to fulfill their oath and defend the Constitution when they are ignorant of what it says?
Personally, I view federal employees (as a group) just like private employees – they’re just earning a living and doing a job. I don’t think that they have a clearer vision of what they are doing or why they are doing it than anyone else.
Our President-elect ran a primary campaign on themes of hope and change – I liked the tone he set at that time. Once he had secured the Democratic party nomination he insisted that the Democratic party cease accepting money from political action committees – I liked that action towards change. Once the general election campaign got underway the tone of his campaign changed to a more traditional type of politicking and I set aside my hope that he might be a different kind of politician.
After he had won the election I entertained the hope that he would prove to be the best version of himself that he had shown during the campaign rather than a lesser version that could also be seen during the campaign. I did this not because politicians have a good track record (and certainly not because Obama had any track record) but because I believe it is our duty as citizens to give our leaders the benefit of doubt until they prove themselves unworthy of that benefit (which is sometimes very quickly). As I have watched his actions since the election my hope has been strengthened by observing the concrete steps he is taking to promote transparency within his administration so far. I hope the pattern of seeking input and sharing directly with the public continues and proves to be a valuable pursuit. I am intrigued by the "team of rivals" that he appears to be building for his cabinet and hope to see positive results form that as well.
I guess I’m just happy to see that after four weeks I actually have more hope that he will be his better self in office than I had the day after the election.
I have enjoyed a number of discussions about politics and our current economic crisis over this Thanksgiving break. During those discussions my father-in-law made the observation that those who advocate for allowing this crisis to run its course without government intervention need to consider the implications of that course and ask themselves if they are prepared for the extremes of lawlessness and social breakdown that could accompany a deep depression.
Call me a fatalist, but I am among those who does not believe that our current approach of large and poorly applied bailouts is going to save us from such a depression. It might delay it slightly but I see us falling into the same (or worse) deep depression with these bailouts as I would expect without them. The proper solution to this crisis is to identify and return to solid financial ground. We have to abandon the practices of excessive risk and inattention to the rules of sound business that we have been ignoring for so long. Paul Krigman has a few thoughts in this direction that we should consider.
Whether we we pursue our present bailout course or not, whether we experience a deep depression wihtint he next two years or not (I just invented that timeframe up off the top of my head), there is one thing that is absolutely sure – we all should ask ourselves if we are ready for the social breakdown and lawlessness that can always potentially occur. Whether we ever face such a situation or not it is always smart to be prepared for it.
Federalist No. 24 shows the lack of logic behind the arguments to prohibit the government from having a standing army. It is relatively unremarkable except that I was surprised to discover that the writing style differed so greatly from other papers by the same author. I was amused by the reference to advanced communication coming from the perspective of our information age.
The improvements in the art of navigation have, as to the facility of communication, rendered distant nations, in a great measure, neighbors.
Federalist No. 25 shows the wisdom of having a military under the control of the central government and the necessity of allowing for standing armies even in times of peace. More importantly, it illustrated the dangers that come form burdening a system of law and government with unnecessary or illogical regulations.
It was a fundamental maxim of the Lacedaemonian commonwealth, that the post of admiral should not be conferred twice on the same person. The Peloponnesian confederates, having suffered a severe defeat at sea from the Athenians, demanded Lysander, who had before served with success in that capacity, to command the combined fleets. The Lacedaemonians, to gratify their allies, and yet preserve the semblance of an adherence to their ancient institutions, had recourse to the flimsy subterfuge of investing Lysander with the real power of admiral, under the nominal title of vice-admiral.
Sadly, our government today has become a system that is almost defined as a burden of unnecessary or illogical regulations – just look at the tax codes.
