The beautiful thing about the representation system

Say that you’re mute, but there is somebody that can speak in place of you to other people. How would you like for that person not to share your values, thoughts, or opinions? It would be awful! They would be saying something to represent you and you would be screaming in your head “No! That’s not what I think!” This could have been the reality of the legal system today. The representatives for Texas in the House could be voting one way on an issue, when the demographics that they represent could think the exact opposite. Fortunately, elections and regions being, to a certain extent, demographically split up, prevents this for the most part. The founders thought our government through very well.

What would the founders think

The concept of federalism as our founders imagined it entailed an equal distribution of both power and responsibility between the state and national governments. Today, however, most of the state responsibilities have been delegated to the national government, and with that most of the states’ power. Has this been a government takeover, or the states believing that the national government had a better chance to take action with the power that it was given than the states did? Either way, the federalist government that our founding fathers originally envisioned will no longer come to pass. I wonder what they would think if they saw the way that our government is run today?

george-washington-portrait-gilbert

Weigh your decisions carefully, America. George Washington is watching you.

Focused on the more important things

A testament to how much effort that the Constitution proponents put in to their cause is evident by the fact that two of the three writers of the Federalist, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, didn’t even bother to save drafts or even final work of their articles. There were so many other things on their mind that saving the Federalist papers was shunned. They did not view it as some glorious argument that needed to be preserved for posterity- they viewed it as just another thing that needed to be done to pass the Constitution. Were it not for John Jay, we would not even have the Federalist documents.

Conciseness is appreciated

While I enjoy reading these political and rhetorical books, there is one thing that they all do that really irritates me. Whether it be Plato or Alexander Hamilton, these authors spend far too much time on each topic. What could be covered in one chapter is covered in five- and its just the same thing over and over with slight variations. It’s pointless! I truly wish that these authors would just say what they want to say and get on with it. I’m looking at you Federalist writers.

Has the National Government Overstepped its Boundaries?

As stated in the Federalist by Alexander Hamilton, the purpose of national government is to provide security against foreign danger, regulation of the intercourse with foreign nations, maintenance of harmony and proper intercourse among the States, certain miscellaneous objects of general utility, restraint of the States from certain injurious acts, provisions for giving due efficacy to all these powers. So, my question is does the United States government still perform these functions, or does it perform more then has been allotted to it? Just a question for thought. I don’t have enough information at the moment to come up with a definitive conclusion. We must also keep in mind that the Constitution and the rules that it defines are flexible. It is open to interpretation. So maybe even if the government is bypassing the terms that Hamilton defined, it is still within the flex of the Constitution.

Why has the Constitution not fallen into irrelevancy?

The title is the question. For a law document written over two hundred years ago, it has remained unbelievably relevant. How can that be? Certainly our founding fathers could not have anticipated what situation our country would be in two hundred years from when the document was penned. Additionally, our country isn’t following some archaic rules from a bygone time. So how is the Constitution still in use today? The answer is simple yet ingenious. Our founding fathers realized that they would not be able to account for changing circumstances and so instead of designing the Constitution as a strict set of rules, they designed it as a frame or skeleton for the future. They allowed for changes to be made, for things to be added in and taken out as required by situation. I am quite impressed by these mens’ ability to look at the big picture while creating the Constitution.

This is what I have to deal with

Consider this sentence. “Would it be wonderful if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet or in his imagination?” This is what I have to read every day! I can’t even divine what this means! And I have to find some meaning to this and write about it!

The most essential part of writing

The most essential part of writing is not your ability to articulate words, nor your editorial staff, nor is it your creativity. The most important part of writing is where you write. Whether it be in an office chair, in a pile of pillows, or at an internet cafe, your writing location is the most important part of the writing process. Alright, alright, I’m just kidding. Maybe your writing location is not the most important part of your writing. However, maybe where you write is a reflection on your personality. Do you prefer a professional writing space, or something more comfortable? Perhaps you prefer to be surrounded by writers of a like mind? I wonder where many of the famous writers of our day preferred to write?

Alexander Hamilton, my main man.

Today Hamilton was talking about how he disagrees with the power distribution between the executive branch and the legislative branch. He gave a brilliant and hilarious analogy to prove his point. I’ll show you some of it here “A stranger to our politics, who was to read our newspapers at the present juncture, without having previously inspected the plan reported by the convention, would be naturally led to one of two conclusions: either that it contained a positive injunction, that standing armies should be kept up in time of peace; or that it vested in the executive the whole power of levying troops, without subjecting his discretion, in any shape, to the control of the legislature.” He proceeds further with this man, addressing certain issues and saying things such as, “The man, seeing this, would certainly think it was some sort of joke or social experiment.” It was a hilarious way to address several issues in the current governmental system. I recommend that you read it for yourself, if you have the time. http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf Go to document 24.