Rights, Responsibilities, and the Constitution

The reason the Constitution speaks more of rights than responsibilities is that it was written to protect the individual from the Government.  That is why, as written, it specifies and limits the powers of the central government, and spells out many of the things that the Government is forbidden from doing.  While that has not always kept the Government on its leash, it gives us a point of reference to help those of us who are interested in such things discern what the Government should and should not be doing...and to let us see where we've gone off track.

 

The Founders presumed that most people, enjoying the freedom to make anything out of their life that they wished, would be responsible for themselves.  And part of the obligation of each generation was to teach the lessons of personal responsibility, shared obligations, and the importance of community and tradition, to each succeeding generation.

 

With the advent of the Welfare State, a growing number of Americans have become more interested in what they can get from the Government than with providing for themselves.  With personal responsibility now becoming seen by many as more of a lifestyle choice than a prerequisite for self-government, we can now see clearly where this will lead us in the not-too-distant future if we don't change course rather soon.   

"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people. Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again.” 

~ Ronald Reagan, from his first inaugural speech as governor of California, January 5, 1967

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the Guardians of Peace-tm science fiction adventure series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

The Federalist, No 62, by James Madison

Among the priceless treasures of American history is work collectively known as The Federalist, written while the adoption of our Constitution was still a matter of public controversy. Some, looking to the chaos and confusion stemming from trying to govern thirteen unruly colonies under the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation, believed that only a united government could keep America strong and free—or, in the words of the Preamble, to “secure the Blessings of Liberty for ourselves and our Posterity.” Others, the Anti-Federalists, feared that a strong, centralized government would be a vehicle for tyrants to impose their will on the population.

In the ensuing public debate, a writer known only as Publius, wrote a series of persuasive essays, pointing out the benefits on the new federal constitution, as well as explaining its provisions to the reading audience. In truth, the essays were written by three giants of American history: James Madison, who would become our fourth president; Alexander Hamilton, who would become our first Secretary of the Treasury; and John Jay, who would become the first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

In the sixty-second essay, James Madison explained the purpose and theory behind having a second house in the Legislature, which the proposed Constitution called the Senate. Among its benefits was intended to be to lend a degree of stability to the new government: since its members would serve six-year terms, he argued, they would be more inclined to take a broader view—and would serve as a brake upon the House of Representatives, which—being elected every two years (and expected to have a high turnover, service in the House being perceived as a sacrifice for those elected to serve), would lack the institutional memory needed to keep the young nation on a steady course.

To the modern reader, such concerns may seem prophetic—for Madison wrote of the need of the nation to avoid being “inconstant” or to “carry on...affairs without any plan at all,” to escape becoming “a speedy victimness to...unsteadiness and folly.” A constant parade of ever-changing laws and regulations, he feared, would give the “moneyed few” a distinct and unconscionable advantage over the industrious masses—for money would enable the elites to monitor and manipulate changes in the laws to their own advantage, while leaving the rest of the country in scrounging for a living in the dust and mud. And constantly changing laws would “be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood,” leaving the “prudent merchant” or farmer or manufacturer reluctant to “hazard his fortunes” on any new enterprise, mindful of the fact that the laws were as variable as the wind, and that his fortunes would always be at the mercy of “an inconstant government.”

Like many passages in the Federalist, Number 62 is remarkable for its concise logic, the gracefulness of its expression, and the persuasive quality of the writing. It is also among the most prescient and insightful commentaries on the risks of self-government—and its lessons about incoherent and intrusive laws appear to have been forgotten, when they should be required reading for everyone, most particularly those who aspire to take upon themselves the responsibility to write our laws and set our policies.

From The Federalist, No. 62, by James Madison:

To trace the mischievous effects of a mutable government would fill a volume. I will hint a few only, each of which will be perceived to be a source of innumerable others.

In the first place, it forfeits the respect and confidence of other nations, and all the advantages connected with national character. An individual who is observed to be inconstant to his plans, or perhaps to carry on his affairs without any plan at all, is marked at once, by all prudent people, as a speedy victim to his own unsteadiness and folly. His more friendly neighbors may pity him, but all will decline to connect their fortunes with his; and not a few will seize the opportunity of making their fortunes out of his. One nation is to another what one individual is to another; with this melancholy distinction perhaps, that the former, with fewer of the benevolent emotions than the latter, are under fewer restraints also from taking undue advantage from the indiscretions of each other. Every nation, consequently, whose affairs betray a want of wisdom and stability, may calculate on every loss which can be sustained from the more systematic policy of their wiser neighbors. But the best instruction on this subject is unhappily conveyed to America by the example of her own situation. She finds that she is held in no respect by her friends; that she is the derision of her enemies; and that she is a prey to every nation which has an interest in speculating on her fluctuating councils and embarrassed affairs.

The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?

Another effect of public instability is the unreasonable advantage it gives to the sagacious, the enterprising, and the moneyed few over the industrious and uniformed mass of the people. Every new regulation concerning commerce or revenue, or in any way affecting the value of the different species of property, presents a new harvest to those who watch the change, and can trace its consequences; a harvest, reared not by themselves, but by the toils and cares of the great body of their fellow-citizens. This is a state of things in which it may be said with some truth that laws are made for the few, not for the many.

In another point of view, great injury results from an unstable government. The want of confidence in the public councils damps every useful undertaking, the success and profit of which may depend on a continuance of existing arrangements. What prudent merchant will hazard his fortunes in any new branch of commerce when he knows not but that his plans may be rendered unlawful before they can be executed? What farmer or manufacturer will lay himself out for the encouragement given to any particular cultivation or establishment, when he can have no assurance that his preparatory labors and advances will not render him a victim to an inconstant government? In a word, no great improvement or laudable enterprise can go forward which requires the auspices of a steady system of national policy.

But the most deplorable effect of all is that diminution of attachment and reverence which steals into the hearts of the people, towards a political system which betrays so many marks of infirmity, and disappoints so many of their flattering hopes. No government, any more than an individual, will long be respected without being truly respectable; nor be truly respectable, without possessing a certain portion of order and stability.

JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a retired public prosecutor from Michigan, writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.

A Modest Amendment

Looking out over the morass that is currently the US economy, it is clear that changes are needed. Everywhere we look, greed and stupidity seem to reign supreme, and from the sounds of the squawks coming down from Capitol Hill, nothing seems likely to change. Blithely ignoring its own complicity in creating the mess, Congress is preening like an oversized, waddling turkey, with every member rushing to denounce the outrage du jour arising as a result of their various hastily-conceived, hastily-crafted, and never-quite-read-or-even-looked-at-too-closely bailout packages.

If produced and choreographed professionally, the result would be a hilarious, if wildly improbable farce, filled with pratfalls by the pompous and well-earned comeuppances abounding. Unfortunately, the price tag for this production is proving well beyond the means of its target audience. While it might be amusing at matinee prices, having the country pay the $1 trillion price of admission has removed most of the show’s humor, and left the troupe’s backers—the increasingly angry taxpayers of this country—up in arms.

The play’s traditional next act—sharpened pitchforks, hot tar, and plenty of feathers—strikes at least one observer as entirely too predictable. While venting outrage on the chorus line of fools and incompetents who led us into this mess may satisfy us for the moment, there is no guarantee that a new cast of characters would do any better. Replacing our current set of fools with another would, it is true, carry the advantage of sending the whole sorry lot packing. But just replacing them with an entirely new set of fools will hardly solve our problems. It might provide a few more sordid plot lines to the melodrama that American Politics seems to be trending toward, but it will do little to fix our present train wreck of an economy—or keep us safe in a world filled with people who hate us.

On the other hand, the simplest solutions often work best, merely because there is so little that can go wrong with them. So perhaps it’s time we tried applying to Congress a lesson in reality familiar to every small business owner or working parent. In short, giving to Congress a slice of life from the “little people” who appear to factor into none of their equations.

Congress and the President often pay lip service to the role of small business in this country. But they do not understand what real responsibility is like at the level where people work and earn a living. Unlike the Federal government, the millions of Mom & Pop operations in this country can’t live on non-existent earnings, year after year. They have to make their payroll. And pay their bills. And pay their taxes. And if there’s nothing left over for them to take home after all their expenses are met, they can’t simply print money to pay themselves.

Our elected leaders, on the other hand, have billions of dollars in other people’s money to play with. And can always get more—either by raising taxes, or by printing it. Predictably, this has led them to be a mite careless in their stewardship.

The solution, it seems to at least one petulant observer, would be to give them an “ownership stake” in the bottom line: simply put—they should be paid out of the money left over after paying all the bills. If there’s none left—if, for example, the country is running a deficit—then they’ll get an IOU for their salary. Just like all the naive taxpayers in California, who thought a tax refund entitled them to actual money. Or, better yet, in addition to the country’s thanks for doing such a wonderful job, they’ll just get a dollar. After all, if it’s good enough for the CEOs of the various and sundry failed companies we’re bailing out by the billions of dollars, it should be good enough for Congress—whose spending habits We The People have been bailing out for years. In fact, we could probably even raise their official salary: by the looks of things, it wouldn’t cost us anything. And who knows—we might even attract a few people to public office who knew what they were doing. Or some naive souls who still think of public service as a sacrifice made for the Public Good, rather than a means of helping friends and colleagues help themselves to other people’s money.

Of course, there may be a few bugs to work out. We wouldn’t, after all, want to let Congress guarantee their salary simply by jacking up tax rates too high. (That risk would be nearly as obvious as the risk of giving billions of our dollars without strings to people whose chief claim on the money is their ability to squander billions of their own dollars). So we might want to add a provision to restrict the Government’s share of our money to a reasonable amount—enough to do everything it needs to do, but not enough to get into too much trouble. Twenty percent of our Gross Domestic Product should do it (though the amount isn’t cast in stone; the modesty of this proposal does not, after all, include an immodest claim of infallibility). After all, that’s twice the amount they’d get if everyone simply “tithed” their income. And we could always include a provision letting Congress go above their new constitutional “Cap” by declaring a state of National Emergency—during which, of course, all elected Federal officials would gladly defer all but a nominal dollar of their salary until the crisis they led us into is passed.

Assuming that most state legislators would be more willing to impose some sort of control on Congress than they would be to face the pitchforks of their disgruntled constituents, getting three-quarters of the states to approve the amendment should pose few problems. This means that all we’d really need would be a two-thirds vote of each House—which, given their adamance that those in charge of failed companies should be willing to serve for a dollar a year, would only be a problem if hypocrisy dared to show itself publicly in the halls of Congress.

Proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United States

(1) The salaries of the President, Vice-President, and all members of Congress shall be payable on the first day of January of each year, for the ensuing year. Such officers may elect to defer their salaries over the course of the ensuing year; the salary of newly elected officers will become payable upon taking office.

(2) Except for any officer mentioned in Section (1) who was newly elected to a first term of office during the preceding year, and notwithstanding any other provision of law establishing their salaries or other remunerations, neither the President, Vice-President, nor any member of Congress shall be entitled to draw more than one dollar ($1) in salary, in any year in which the budget of the United States runs, or is projected to run, a deficit. For purposes of this Section, all federal expenses, including trust funds and any and all special appropriations, shall be included in the calculation of a deficit. The refund of any salary paid to an affected officer during a year in which the budget is in deficit shall be payable by the officer to the Treasury of the United States on April 15th of the following year. Failure to make a timely payment of excess salary shall be grounds for removal from office.

(3) Except during times declared by Congress to be a National Emergency, the tax revenues of the United States shall be limited to twenty percent (20%) of the Gross Domestic Product, as calculated by the Department of the Treasury. Excess taxes collected shall be proportionately refunded by April 15th of the following year, unless Congress has established a proportional system of tax credits to accomplish the same purpose.

(4) During a time of National Emergency declared by Congress, the President, Vice-President, and all Members of Congress shall draw a salary of one dollar ($1) per year, until such time as Congress declares that the emergency is over.


JEFFREY CAMINSKY, a veteran public prosecutor in Detroit, Michigan, specializes in the appellate practice of criminal law and writes on a wide range of topics. His books include the science fiction adventure novel The Star Dancers, the exciting second volume in the Guardians of Peace-tm series, The Sonnets of William Shakespeare, and the acclaimed Referee’s Survival Guide, a book on soccer officiating. All are published by New Alexandria Press, and are available on Amazon, as well as directly from the publisher.