#140 Musings Beyond the Bunker (Friday September 10)
Good morning,
I think it would be fun to play a game, “Founder for a Day.” There has been so much background noise created by the right regarding what the founders’ intent was. We spend so much time parsing their words, trying to apply their thought process to current problems. But the current focus on words is not enough. We need to understand their meaning in context. The founders were governed by an enlightenment philosophy that relied heavily on advances in science and doctrines of individual liberty and freedom. Perhaps the right way to go is to expound upon their thinking (rather than merely their words in a three-page document) to ascertain our best guess what they might do in current situations.
So let’s just walk through a few things, knowing their predilections about the power of the state, majority rule and the protection of minority rights. Some of what I propose can be enacted by legislation signed by the President. Other things would require a constitutional amendment (which, let’s face it, has little to no chance of happening). Here goes:
THE CONSTITUTION
Everyone gets a vote. Let’s start with the easiest one, yet the one that is generating considerable controversy these days, namely, statehood for the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. When Constitution provided that the District did not receive representation in the Senate it was because it was just the seat of government, with few inhabitants at that time. Now it is a burgeoning urban center with over 750,000 residents. Is there a single article written by any founder that would support denying the vote to certain citizens? There is no defensible justification for denying DC the vote, in light of its emergence as a “real” city and not merely offices for few federal employees. It requires only congressional approval and a presidential signature to correct this injustice. Sure, the Republicans will complain that the Democrats are “stacking” the Senate but remember that (a) the Senate is already stacked with a bias toward less-populated-Republican leaning states, and (b) DC has a population greater than two existing states. As for Puerto Rico, it would be somewhere around the 35th most populous state.
Majority rule. This one’s so simple. The filibuster was created to protect southern slaveholding states and allow them to thwart legislation that would restrict slavery and its expansion. It is not even part of the Constitution. It is a Senate rule, which can be changed by majority vote of the Senate. Its current effect is to give the minority a veto over nearly every bill of any importance. I just don’t think this was intended by any founder. In any event, the minority is protected in myriad other ways.
Stop raising money all the time. It’s nuts that House members are constantly raising money and running for reelection. In a perfect world, we’d make terms four years and stagger them so that there was less turnover every two years. Will never happen.
No gerrymandering. It’s pernicious. It’s racist. It’s anti-democratic. None of the founders would have condoned such a practice.
Distribute electoral votes more fairly. When the Constitution was adopted, Virginia was the largest state, approximately 13 times the population of Delaware, the smallest. Today California has 67 times the population of Wyoming. The Constitution was enacted by a coastal nation with states closer together in population. Now we have states wildly divergent in population, causing the small more rural, less populous, states significantly greater sway and effective control.
Shorten judicial terms. Life terms for Supreme Court Justices (and other federal judges) were an attempt by the founders to insulate the judiciary from political interference. The life term for judges mirrors to some degree the “life terms” of monarchs. What has happened belies the attempt of the founders, as judges increasingly are reviewed not for their scholarship, impartiality, temperament, and experience. Now they tend to be reviewed for what Senators believe the nominees will decide once on the bench. But there are practical considerations as well. The founders anticipated life expectancies among the healthier in the population in the 60s. They likely would have been shocked by advances in prolonging life. And they certainly would not have anticipated the maladies associated with old age, including increased rates of senility as more judges live longer. Had they known, I’m quite sure they would have limited sitting on the bench to some reasonable length of time (I’d say by years but would be just as happy with age as the limiting factor). Perhaps after age 80, can can participate in the discussion but that justice must step aside as a voting justice and make room for the next generation.
Reasonable gun ownership. No one—not Ronald Reagan, not even the NRA—anticipated this extreme love affair with high powered, large magazine, armor piercing weaponry. The Second Amendment was only recently expanded to include more than a rifle or small weapons for hunting and self-protection. Now the sky’s the limit, due to the lobbying of NRA elites and gun manufacturers. The Second Amendment ties ownership of guns to a militia. That’s what it should be. Limit access. Limit them in number. Require background checks and registration and require training and continuing education.
Right to Choice / Right to Life. For the life of me (pardon the pun) I really don’t know. As I’ve said many times, this is a moral/ethical issue that offers few points of compromise. Some of the founders were members of established churches, including Quakers. Others were deists. Not sure how all the religious views shake out. Pretty sure the deists would be right to choice.
AS TO WORLD VIEW
As to “entangling alliances” (as Washington would say), the founders likely would have frowned upon a prolonged war in either Afghanistan or Iraq but likely would have condoned the George H.W. Bush-led Kuwait War in the 90s.
The founders were men of the world (with wives of the world too!). They loved foreign culture; many respected and appreciated Native American culture. They were not “America First” to the extent that it precludes understanding the “other” or borrowing ideas from others. They appreciated French style, English literature, and Italian art. And while they rejected outside meddling and judiciously engaged in their own foreign adventures (particularly as pertains to piracy), they felt America was one nation among many, an active player on the world stage. It is not an accident that the founders and the successive several generations focused on, and sent some of their best and brightest, to act as emissaries to the Court of St. James’s, Paris, St. Petersburg and other European capitals.
I’m looking forward to other thoughts on the founders and what they might have thought about our times and issues.
Have a great day,
Glenn
Click here to subscribe to Musings.
From the archives: