Re-posted for Independence Day, 2013
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." Mr. Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address
Our constitution exists not to enable government, but rather, to limit its power and scope. It is a document that assumes, as the men at Philadelphia assumed, that "Man" is an imperfect creature who will, in the vast majority of cases, abuse whatever power lies within his grasp. The document clearly is written in the belief that people will take advantage of whatever power they are given in order to use it to advance their own ambitions or "feather the nests" of friends and family. To place as many obstacles as possible in the path of this pre-disposition, our government is organized by dividing power between the federal government and the states, between the three branches of the federal government, and ultimately and most importantly between government as a whole and the sovereign people of the United States.
"[It is] the people, to whom all authority belongs." --Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1821.
For Jefferson, the government, all government, was merely the most practical way to overcome the difficulties inherent in direct forms of democracy. For him, government was first, last and always the servant of the people.
"The Best Government is the Least Possible," was his guiding principle. The trick was and is to know what the "least possible" might be.
He understood clearly that the office of the presidency of the United States was limited in authority and essentially a job in which management of the Executive Branch bureaucracy combined with a stern responsibility to require that federal law be enforced.
The trappings of monarchy which have developed in the last 50 years with regard to the presidency would have shocked and dismayed him as they would have almost all of our presidents with the possible exception of Nixon. His comic opera uniforms for White House guards will live in public memory as among his more bizarre follies.
Our last few presidents have lived in the style of kings. They are isolated from the people and exist in a condition of pampered protection surrounded by hard eyed policemen and vigilant staffs whose main purpose seems to be to insure detachment from the cares of ordinary Americans, the sovereigns of this country. Somehow, the idea has taken hold that the president is the CEO of the United States and that he is personally responsible for the vagaries of securities markets and the economy in general. Nonsense!! The president does not RUN America. He has nothing like the power or authority that the decline of republicanism in this country has given to him in the popular mind.
"Inside the Beltway," is a phrase pregnant with meaning. It connotes a kind of isolation from "real life" which extends up and down Pennsylvania Avenue and from which the Congress with their army of self serving staffs and dependence on paid lobbyists can not be excused.
More and more, one is told that criticism of executive branch policy is somehow un-patriotic, and that a citizen owes the president an unquestioning acceptance of policy.
Rubbish! The president of the United States is Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the United States. The president is not Commander in Chief of the United States. The Armed Forces are bound by their oaths to accept legal orders from the constitutionally created government of the United States. Policy formation is not their business, nor should it be. The situation is altogether different in the relationship of the president as policy maker to the citizens of this country. He is their employee. He holds office at their pleasure and that of their representatives in the Congress. It is their DUTY, it is their RIGHT to question his policy, always. If it is not their duty and their right, then he is sovereign and not they.
Mr. Jefferson was an aristocrat to his finger tips, but he knew there were things far beyond his power as president to change or cure. Slavery was one of them, however much he feared its eventual result At the end of his first inaugural address he walked to the White House from the capitol surrounded by a crowd of tradesmen and children. He never delivered a State of the Union address in person. He always sent it to the Congress in written form. He thought that to give such a speech would encourage an exaggeration of the idea of the office of president that might lead to what we have now.
He wrote his own epitaph:
- "Here was buried Thomas Jefferson
- Author of the Declaration of American Independence
- of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom
- & Father of the University of Virginia"
What it does not say is "President of the United States."
"Commander in Chief" can be translated into Roman usage as "Imperator."
"Emperor" would be our form of the word.
In response to the threat to American liberties posed by the "Alien and Sedition Acts" the legislatures of Kentucky and Virginia passed the following resolutions in 1799. They are believed to have been drafted by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively.
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/kenres.htm
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/virres.htm
Pat Lang
No, corporations are sovereign.
Posted by: RJJ | 26 August 2005 at 03:59 PM
I just saw a poll asking if we have the right to protest ---------To me-- There seems something genuinely nuts about a culture that deems it important to poll its citizens on how it "feels" about inalienable rights. As if the American right to dissent is merely contingent upon the approval of the majority.--I thought it was our constitution right ....some claim (American Legion Declares War on Protestors )that protest against the war in Iraq is unpatriotic and unsupportive of the troops, I do not personaly think so ----am I wrong ?
Posted by: carol | 26 August 2005 at 08:02 PM
Carol
You are not wrong.
Pat
Posted by: ismoot | 26 August 2005 at 08:35 PM
I just read an article at "Editor & Publisher" about a resolution passed by the American Legion. They've called for an end to public protests of the war. "The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary to 'ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops and the global war on terrorism.'"
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001020671
Posted by: jean | 26 August 2005 at 11:24 PM
And how. I too have been disgusted by the growth of imperial presidency over the last couple decades.
Bush sets a new highwater mark for king-like behavior and attitude.
Did you see the backdrop for his platitudinous drivel in Idaho? The pageantry and symbolism is not unfamiliar and the comparisons are harsh. I will leave that to others to fill in as I am sure it is not necessary to state.
Such staged "patriotism" disturbs me immensely. I do not think one proves a love of home and country by deploying the proper iconic spectacle. One does, however, nurture a culture of loyalty that is not based on democratic accountability but on liege-like fealty. That is corrosive to this nation over and above the policy incompetence we are witnessing. Or rather, it magnifies the harm of the incompetence because it interferes with proper accountability to the people.
The barkers for this president have made it clear he is to be treated as if infallible and it stinks. Especially because he has been so fantastically wrong time and again.
Posted by: Some Guy | 26 August 2005 at 11:30 PM
Will the US become the USSR or the Roman Empire?
Posted by: Jerome Gaskins | 27 August 2005 at 06:23 PM
As Shakespeare had Brutus say in Julius Caesar:
There is a tide in the affairs of men
Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune;
Omitted, all the voyage of their life
Is bound in shallows and in miseries.
On such a full sea are we now afloat;
And we must take the current when it serves,
Or lose our ventures.
As during a similar desultory time in the history of our country thirty-five years ago, we have come to a crisis of confidence in our ability to control our own government and its vast military-industrial tentacles. We must bend it -- and them -- to our service; not bend our own collective knee to their imperious commands. "We have met the enemy," Pogo memorably said, "and it is us." We will now either meet and defeat the worst in ourselves -- a mindless cult worship of Maximum Leader and his quivering court courtiers (and emerge stronger for the tough-love therapy) -- or we will die of our own debilitating dis-ease.
As my beloved mother used to say to me whenever she wanted me to think for myself:
"The time has come," the Walrus said,
"To talk of many things:
Of shoes -- and ships -- and sealing wax --
Of cabbages -- and kings."
I think we had better think long and hard about this "king" and "monarchy" business. If we miss the boat this time around, we may not get another.
Posted by: Michael Murry | 06 November 2005 at 01:33 AM
OK. Big J. had a good point: we gotta limit the power of government. But he had no way of foreseeing the equally unjust system of rampant citizen initiatives.
In CO we just endured a bruising battle over a citizen-initiated government income-limiting constitutional amendment called TABOR. Its primary function seems to be to destroy government by disallowing any increase in tax revenue regardless of reason or need. (the previous is sarcasm) Successfully, until now. The "deBrucing" (A term which refers to the California immigrant who created this abomination. That's his last name, BTW.) was narrowly passed.
The losers here are those dependent on public help to survive: single parents, children, the infirm, the poor, and other disadvantaged citizens. After all, those most able to care for themselves need the tax refunds more than those in dire need.
No goverment could be more callous without gunning them down in the streets. Even in my poor county, the vote was against allowing CO to keep a few dollars to help others. Can they not see the people around them? Are they insulated somehow like those in The Beltway?
Direct citizen control is not much better than an indifferent central government. Maybe it's the Reagan years advocating that "Greed is good.", as pure Randian as one can get. But BS.
How does one get justice, compassion, fairness, and efficiency in a government? The best system is a benevolent monarchy/dictatorship like Monaco has. But how does a nation insure its benevolence? The constitutional monarchy of Britain is not a good example since they are now ceremonial. Unfortunately, our psuedomonarchy in the White House is not ceremonial.
I don't have the answer but nor have I heard anyone else present any other plausible answer. I recall a SF short story in the pulps decades ago called "Ultima Thule" whose primary premise was that there is NO answer. To advance, nations and civilizations must continually change their governament. Otherwise the citizens get too comfortable. Like that's a bad thing . . .
Posted by: Charlie Green | 06 November 2005 at 08:27 PM
Commander in Chief=imperator=unitary executive=sole ruler=mon-arch?
Posted by: R SENERIS | 04 November 2006 at 04:19 PM
Charlie Green,
I wonder if behind that "citizen-initiated initiative" was some very big money with powerful names attached to it that one can find if one looks closely. Names like Grover Norquist, Jack Abramoff, Mellon-Scaife, Coors, etc.
Posted by: JT Davis | 04 November 2006 at 04:34 PM
Well, it was a name I hadn't heard of before.
The aptly named Howard Rich from the uephemistically named Americans for Limited Government. These people don't know the first thing about TJ.
http://www.stealthpacs.org/agent.cfm?agent_id=445
Posted by: JT Davis | 04 November 2006 at 04:46 PM
i just find it amazing...
in less than a decade, the US left behind a past of respectful democracy [in terms, I know...] and became a global threat!
instead of "bring democracy" to whatever alien country, it is kicking down its own democracy...
yep, one can feel history mooving faast...
good luck, american fellows, and for us all as well, it seems we're gonna need it.
Posted by: rodolfo | 04 November 2006 at 05:25 PM
Green,
Our Constitution has served, virtually unchanged since it's original drafting. Granting some of the Amendments drastically altered some aspects of the document but still, the framework for the government remains the same. Today, we must amend the Constitution. Gone is the need for a Electorial College. In as a need to ban outragous gerrymandering. Take a good hard look at our district maps and then realize that we are ony kidding ourselves that we are living in a democracy/federalist state. It is time for change, before it is too late. Is it to much to ask for that I/we be allowed to vote for a representative that lives in neighborhood/city? Should my three neighbors be in seperate districts? I think not. The problem is that the Constitution is being "gamed" by politicians who, nowing, having gamed the system consider anyone who wants to change the rules a traitor. The politicians are chomping at the bit to amend the Constition to ban abortion but would not dare to amend the same to ensure true representation.
Posted by: truth | 04 November 2006 at 07:01 PM
VOTE!
Posted by: tregen | 04 November 2006 at 07:02 PM
Pat:
A nice piece. I am beginninng to think there is only one way to control the government. A balanced budget amendment with some flexibility to run small deficits during turn downs which must be offset a few years later.
Then the only way to spend like we currently are is to raise taxes which will quickly end the out of control spending.
Currently our government is spending and taxing the future generations with the deficits.
Bring the spending under control and you will bring the presidency under control. Of course none of this will be easy and due to the US living beyound its means for a number of years, there will be some really painful years.
Posted by: John | 04 November 2006 at 09:29 PM
"The delegates voted to use whatever means necessary
to 'ensure the united backing of the American people to support our troops
and the global war on terrorism.' "
Given my sketchy knowledge of history, the first groups which come to
mind are 'stahlhelm','freikorps' and 'stormtroopers' . Are
the American Legion delegates voting to place
their organization in the
history books alongside the
three groups named above?
Assuming the police give
precisely no protection whatever to protesters, just
what kind of reception should protesters expect to
recieve from the American Legion, and how should the
protesters prepare themselves in advance in order to be ready to respond?
Is the American Legion deciding to relive the tension of the Vietnam War
time? But this time on what
the American Legion imagines
to be its own terms? Is the
American Legion planning to
'bring the war home'?
Posted by: different clue | 04 November 2006 at 10:06 PM
The current Imperial excesses of the Bush administration are mushrooms. The rot that sustains them goes far deeper into the body politic.
As I see it the central problem is that "Democracy", the rule by the majority, only works so long is there is an informed electorate, a free press and, I think above all, a concept of shared values and social unity. In the absence of these three things Democracy is simply a contest between demagogues, and their followers to see who can best incite the mob to action.
Unfortunately all of the prerequisites for a functioning Democratic state seem to be in decline in America. From chronic problems in education, to an increasingly captive and corporate media to the persuasive rhetoric that people who disagree politically are "Traitors" or "Enemies" these are all long term problems.
Removing the current crop from power would be a start, but it will by no means solve the problems that America is facing.
Posted by: Grimgrin | 05 November 2006 at 12:22 AM
Thank you for this post on Jefferson and the Imperator.
Posted by: C.M. Mayo | 05 November 2006 at 12:53 AM
I would say that the thing that stands out in Jefferson's epitaph is:
Father of the University of Virginia
A Democracy must be based on an educational system that permits its citizens to understand Pat's brilliant post.
Education has been abandoned in the United States.
What the political parties do with television advertising during campaigns is attempt to educate the electorate. But in doing so, they reveal their estimate of the educational level of the electorate.
In Jefferson's time, which Pat does not point out, suffrage was very limited. It was not just slaves who could not vote.
Now, we have universal suffrage...and the fantasy that that is based on universal education.
Posted by: arbogast | 05 November 2006 at 03:59 AM
I would just expand the point to include the branch of government that Locke, and the framers, regarded as the supreme branch. Our legislature simply couldn't be any more disconnected from us, and from its responsibilities to the republic.
A couple of weeks ago, I sent my congressman's office an email, explaining that I was overseas on active duty in the military but would be back home in a few weeks and wanted to schedule a five-minute meeting with my representative to discuss the Military Commissions Act.
Their answer was that I was welcome to write a letter or meet with his district representative. My congressman apparently no longer meets with constituents. Or maybe he just no longer meets with constituents coming home from long military deployments overseas, away from their home and families.
The bubble is complete. Our government has forgotten that it is ~our~ government.
Posted by: Chris Bray | 05 November 2006 at 06:13 AM
"A nice piece. I am beginninng to think there is only one way to control the government. A balanced budget amendment with some flexibility to run small deficits during turn downs which must be offset a few years later."
I think John has hit the nail on the head. This ability to launch the currently floundering adventure in Iraq was facilitated by the fact that most people would not have to give up money or lives of loved ones. Imagine the reaction if everyone knew that in 2003 their sons would be drafted and their taxes would go up dramatically.
The current deficit spending and ability to keeps enormous liabilities (like Iraq war costs) off the budget, has allowed politicians to buy our votes with our own money - or more realistically, with the our kids' money. Of course the list of problems associated with money goes on and on. Taking away this big enabler would be a huge start in putting the government back to work for the people.
Posted by: Larry Mitchell | 05 November 2006 at 07:31 AM
In reply to arbogast, based on the educated people's vote, Bush won in 2004 (i.e., after his record was clear).
CNN exit poll
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
No High School Bush(49%) Kerry(50%)
High School Graduate Bush(52%) Kerry(47%)
Some college Bush(54%) Kerry(46%)
College Graduate Bush(52%) Kerry(46%)
Postgrad study Bush(44%) Kerry(55%)
No High school is 4% and Postgrad study is 16% of the sample.
So, if you're complaining about Bush, then you have to argue Jefferson was talking about postgrad education as being necessary to run this democracy.
If Bush is acceptable to you or better than Kerry, then too much education is a bad thing, the postgrad crowd would never have reelected Bush.
Posted by: Arun | 05 November 2006 at 10:00 AM
Ah, Larry Mitchell!
And you ask me why I call this Greenspan's war.
Artificially low interest rates were the motor for the Iraq war. Pure and simple.
And, of course, it is treasonous to ask whether Greenspan has dual nationality...like so many others such as Perle and Wolfowitz...who bear so much of the responsibility for this horror.
Posted by: arbogast | 05 November 2006 at 10:03 AM
I am the only one who can feel the democratic exhaustion setting in? Now that our elections are rigged because of the money exclusion and the bandwidth of candidates is about a nanometer wide, is it any surprise that voter participation is plummeting throughout the West? I notice even in Israel it's about 60%, which is catastrophic for the civilly minded Zionists. In England, it's under 50%. The Mother of Parliaments is going sterile. Result: Enter the Reichstag burners. We are beseiged by ads appealing to our collective unconscious and dark recesses of our brains, and we avoid any real substance. Notice that a senior statesman (James Baker) claims we should only talk about solutions for Iraq AFTER the election. You don't want the people actually voting based on facts. Baker calls that "politics." Col. Lang, the people should be, but most assuredly are not, sovereign.
Posted by: Matthew | 05 November 2006 at 12:41 PM
Arun, you equate years of schooling in the United States with education. I specifically did not do that. Nor do I now.
The question is what young people learn in schools, not how many years they are there.
Let us take Thomas Jefferson as an example. How many college graduates of today are comparable to Jefferson?
Recall that George Bush graduated from three elite institutions.
American education is a lottery that rewards a tiny population of "winners". The rest get crap.
Posted by: arbogast | 05 November 2006 at 02:59 PM