We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal…[Declaration of Independence]
Why is the equality of people the first "self-evident" truth mentioned in the Declaration of Independence? Because the Founding Fathers hated the aristocracy. They hated the aristocracy more than the monarch--with good reason. There was only one monarch but hundreds, maybe thousands, of aristocrats. Some served in the House of Lords, one house of the British congress.[1]
And since the monarch confers titles, people who want to become aristocrats have a personal goal with no connection to the best interests of the nation.[2]
The Founding Fathers feared an aristocracy would evolve in the U.S.[3] I believe that we now have an aristocracy and it is as tyrannical as the Founding Fathers feared.
How and why did our aristocracy develop?
In every group of people--whether a small club, a neighborhood, a city, state or country--some people are treated as leaders of the group, even if there is no formal leader-position in the group. The quality of the leader's ideas rarely affects their ability to gain power. It's their personality, rhetoric, and charisma that draws followers.
Many people want a leader to direct at least some aspect of their lives. And some people like having every moment of their lives scheduled. A clear example of this is cults. They would not grow and flourish if people didn't want to follow a leader, someone to tell them how to live.
The Founding Fathers knew about this basic psychological need. This need isn't intrinsically good or bad. It's simply a human trait. And the Founding Fathers knew that human nature can't be changed.[4]
The human trait--to look to someone else for advice, answers, or direction--will always exist. Instead of attempting to change human nature, the Founding Fathers wrote, and the States ratified, a Constitution that severely limits the federal government's power.[5] And the Constitution limits the most powerful federal authority, the House of Representatives, by requiring biennial elections.[6]
The Founding Fathers hoped that Article 1, Section 9, clause 7 would block the formation of an aristocracy:
"No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States; and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state."[7]
Respect v. Aristocracy
The Federalist Papers discuss both the positive characteristics of persons they hope will be elected or appointed to national office and how we can spot tyrants (American aristocrats). The Founding Fathers expected that there would be a mutual respect between government officials and citizens.
Federalist Paper #57, paragraphs 5-13, describes Representatives:
“Who will elect the federal Representatives? Not the rich more than the poor. Not the educated more than the ignorant. Not the haughty heirs of famous names more than the humble sons of obscurity without a family fortune. The people of the United States will vote. They will be the same people who elect representatives to the State legislatures
“Who will be elected? The candidate will be a citizen whose merit recommends him to the esteem and confidence of his country. There are no qualifications of wealth, birth, religious faith, or civil profession.
“Several things assure us that the Representatives will be faithful to their constituents.
“First. Their fellow citizen will choose them. They will have some good qualities, including an understanding of their obligations as an elected official.
“Second. When they begin to serve, they will have at least a temporary affection for their constituents. When citizens honor a person, he responds positively. This guarantees some grateful and benevolent returns.
“People often discuss ingratitude. And it does happen too frequently, both in public and private life. But the extreme anger the discussion of ingratitude inspires proves that most people feel grateful.
“Third, the representative is also tied to his constituents for selfish reasons. Being an elected official flatters his pride and vanity. A large number of men advance politically because of their influence with the people. And they have more to gain from preserving the voters' favor, than from working to change the government in a way that subverts the people’s authority.
“Fourth. These securities would not be enough without the restraint of frequent elections. The bi-annual elections to the House of Representatives will remind members of their dependence on the people.
“Before they have time to forget how they got the power of their high office, they will be forced to think about the next election, when their actions will be reviewed. They will be reminded that they will become a common citizen if they haven’t faithfully discharged their trust and truly deserve to be reelected.
“Fifth. Every law the House of Representatives passes will operate on the Representatives and their friends, as well as the society. This is another restraint on the power.
“This creates a strong bond and common interests between rulers and the people. Few governments have this feature. And without it, every government degenerates into tyranny.
What stops the House of Representatives from making laws that favor themselves and a specific class of society? The whole system. The nature of just and constitutional laws. And, above all, the vigilant spirit of the people of America—a spirit which nourishes freedom and, in return, is nourished by it.
[The very next paragraph warns us about tyranny]
If the people of America ever tolerate a law that does not apply to legislators, as well as on the people, the people will be prepared to tolerate anything but liberty
Election of Senators and President
Most of us realize that the President is not elected by popular vote. In theory, each State votes for electors who then elect the President.
Most of us have forgotten that United States Senators were originally elected by the State legislatures. This was changed by the 17th Amendment to the Constitution.
Federalist Paper # 64 [paragraph 3-4]
…In the Constitution, electors, selected by the people for that purpose, will choose the President. And the State legislatures appoint the senators.
This system has a great advantage over direct elections by the people. Party zeal has a great influence in direct elections. It can take advantage of indifference, ignorance, and the hopes and fears of the unwary and uninterested people. And men are often elected by a small proportion of the electors.
Electors will choose the President. State legislatures will appoint the senators. They will usually be enlightened and respectable citizens. We can presume that they will vote for able and virtuous men, who have the people’s confidence.
The Constitution supports this objective. The President must be at least 35 and Senators 30 years old. The people will have time to judge the candidates. Sometimes a candidate can briefly appear brilliant and patriotic, misleading and dazzling the public. But the electors and legislators will not be deceived.
The electors will have extensive and accurate information about men and their characters. Their appointments should be made with discretion and discernment.
We can infer that the President and Senators, so chosen, will understand our national interests, whether as related to the States or foreign nations. They will promote those interests. They will have reputation for integrity that inspires confidence.
Of course, a person doesn't need to have an aristocratic title to behave as an aristocrat. And tyrants aren't called "tyrant."
A "government" is not a person, place, or thing. It is a set of rules that people who live in a specific geographical area agree to follow. This is true for any government, including monarchies and dictatorships. When people no longer want to follow a monarch or dictator, they revolt--like the American colonies. The Declaration of Independence references the right that all people have to change their government.
A few years ago, the people in the county where I live decided to exercise their right to change a part of the county's governmental structure. Six months after a school board election, the school board made a decision that the majority of the people in the county disagreed with. Without any prior organization, the citizens came together and petitioned the county for a new school board election. A new election was held and the offending school board members were replaced.
The current US federal government's “rules” [laws] are far stricter and more limiting than the British government in 1776. We have so many "rules" it would take a lifetime of study to know them all. Yet Congress spends the majority of every year in session, writing and debating more rules. It certainly was not the Founding Fathers' plan to create a government with so many rules. But an overwhelming number of rules is the life-blood of tyrants.
Before examining the tyrant's love of rules on a national scale, let's see how a tyrant might operate from one of the lowest governmental positions—as your city's forester. Let's say she doesn't like you. Chances are, she can fine you for breaking a city forestry rule or regulation. You might not even be aware of the specific rule.
If by some miracle you have not broken any of the zillions of city forestry rules, she can probably make up a new rule. For example, she might decide that homeowners are responsible for the strip of land between the sidewalk and street and it must be filled with grass that is 4" tall. She takes this wonderful idea to a superior in the city government along with a picture of the ugliest example of non-maintenance of this strip of land she can find and her idea becomes a rule.
Now she can come to your property with a ruler. If the grass in the strip of land between your sidewalk and the city street is not 4", the city can fine you and make you pay for a city lawnmower to correct the infraction.
Of course, there are the sidewalk rules: width, length between scorings, material, smoothness, no cracks. And the fruit-tree rules, the leaf rules, the dead blossom rules, the pooper-scooper rules, and on and on . . . This tyrant can make your life miserable. Threats to national security don't take the emotional toll of this one tyrant. How prisoners of war are treated is not an issue in your life. How you are being treated as a citizen in your town should be—and is—the big issue in your life.
In this example, are all people equal? No. A city office-holder has power over your grass!
How did this happen? It probably happened a few steps at a time. The original city "beautification" rules made sense to nearly everyone: no cars on cement blocks in the front yard, no farm animals within the city limits, no exotic animals, no RVs within view of the street, no broken sidewalks. . . this was how the rules developed over time.
Then the rules became more intrusive to some property owners. You can't build cabinets for customers in your garage. That tree in your backyard is so special that it can't be cut down. Your friend can't live in the efficiency apartment in your basement. A rock 'n roll band can't play on Memorial Day afternoon in your back yard. (I add this "rule" to the list so I can relate a true story.)
My family home was really large and each of the lots in our neighborhood were a full city block in length and about 60 feet wide. For six or seven years in the mid-60s, my parents hosted a picnic in our backyard every Memorial Day. The guests were very special people who deserved to be honored for their work. After our meal one year, our guests were entertained by my younger brother's rock 'n roll band. They couldn't be much older than 8th or 9th graders, but they were very good. They were already getting jobs to play at college fraternity and sorority dances.
It was about 3:00 in the afternoon and we didn't know that a neighbor had called the police and complained about the noise coming from our backyard. The police who came to investigate parked in front of our house. As soon as the policemen started walking around the house, they could see the band but not its audience.
Those of us sitting in the backyard were surprised to see two very stern-faced policemen—obviously set on admonishing the noisy teens—appear from around the house. But our surprise was nothing compared to the policemen's. Our special Memorial Day guests every year were the 35-40 nuns who taught in the Catholic schools in our city. The policemen quickly apologized for interrupting and made a hasty exit!
This story points out—once again—that everyone is not treated equally. Would the policemen have done something different if the audience had been 35-40 teenagers?
[1] Federalist Paper # 48 [paragraph 4]:
The founders of our republic knew that an all-grasping hereditary monarch, supported by a hereditary legislature, jeopardizes liberty. Legislative usurpations lead to the same tyranny as executive usurpations.
[2] Federalist Paper # 69 [paragraph 9]
…The king of Great Britain is called the fountain of honors. He not only appoints to all offices, but can create offices. He can confer titles of nobility and give out an immense number of church honors…
[3] Federalist Paper # 63 [paragraph 15]
… jealous opponents of the Constitution … will probably say that a senate that is not elected directly by the people and with six-year terms will slowly become powerful. And it will eventually turn into a tyrannical aristocracy.
Federalist Paper # 57 [paragraph 1-3]
The third charge against the House of Representative is that members will come from the upper class of citizens, who have little in common with the mass of the people. And their ambition will sacrifice the many to the benefit of the few.
This objection to the Constitution suggests an oligarchy will develop. And it strikes at the root of republican government. The first goal of every political constitution is finding men to rule who have the wisdom to understand and the virtue to pursue society's common good. Next, it needs a way to keep them virtuous while they are in office.
Republican governments elect rulers. Many things help to prevent their degeneracy. The most effective is limiting their term in office. Because they have to face reelection, they will feel responsible to the people.
[4] Federalist Paper # 1 [paragraph 5]
…Dangerous ambition is more often masked by a zeal for the rights of the people than the zeal for a firm and efficient government. History teaches us that most men who have overturned the liberties of republics began their career by proclaiming their devotion to the people. They gain position by arousing people's prejudices and end as tyrants.
Federalist Paper # 70 [paragraph 22]
The kind of security sought for in a plural EXECUTIVE is unattainable. The number has to be so great that conspiracy is difficult; otherwise conspiracies become a source of danger rather than security. When power is placed in a small number of men, a talented leader can easily get them to agree to a common enterprise. A small group is easier to abuse and more dangerous when abused, than a single man. One man can be closely watched and more easily suspected. …A council to an executive, who is responsible for what he does, clogs his good intentions, becomes accomplices of his bad deeds, and almost always is a cloak to his faults.
[5] Federalist Paper # 84 [paragraph 8-10]
… The proposed Constitution is founded on the power of the people. The people’s representatives will execute it. Therefore, a bill of rights doesn’t belong in the Constitution. The people surrender nothing. And they keep everything. Specific reservations are not needed.
“We, the people of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
This recognizes popular rights. And it is more effective than the large number of aphorisms that make up our State bills of rights, which would sound much better in a treatise on ethics than in a constitution of government.
9 A specific list of rights is even less applicable to a Constitution like the one under consideration. It only regulates the general political interests of the nation. It does not regulate every type of personal and private concern. Therefore, if people use this point to oppose the new Constitution, the constitution of New York must be condemned. However, both constitutions meet their objectives.
10 A bill of rights is not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would be dangerous. It would contain exceptions to powers not granted. This would give the government a good pretext to claim more powers than were granted. Why declare that things shall not be done when there is no power to do it?
For instance, why say that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained when no power is given to impose restrictions? Such a provision would not confer a regulating power. However, men who want to usurp power could use it to claim that power. They might argue—with some logic—that it is absurd to say there is no authority when the Constitution has a provision against the abuse of that authority. They could say that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press clearly implies that the national government has a power to regulate it.
This is an example of the many handles that would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.
[6] Federalist Paper # 52 [paragraph 4-]
4 The representatives’ term is two years. We will consider two questions:
(1) Will biennial elections be safe?
(2) Are biennial elections necessary?
5 To maintain liberty, the government and the people must have a common interest. The House of Representatives needs to both depend on the people and sympathize with their constituents. Frequent elections secure this dependence and sympathy. But it is impossible to figure out how frequent the elections need to be. Let us consult experience, the guide that should always be followed whenever it can be found.
6 …Great Britain seems to believe that three years between elections is the shortest period needed to keep representatives dependent on voters. Even with elections every seven years and a limited constitution, Great Britain has some liberty. Therefore, if our federal Representatives are elected every two years, they should feel dependent on the voters.
8 … biennial elections will not endanger liberty.
10 Three things will strengthen [this] conclusion…
First, the federal House of Representatives will have only part of the supreme legislative authority. It is an important rule that, excluding all other circumstances, the greater the power, the shorter ought to be its duration. And conversely, the smaller the power, the more safely may its duration be lengthened.
Second, in addition to being dependent on the people, the House of Representatives will be watched and controlled by the State legislatures.
Third, we cannot compare the ability of the more permanent branches of the federal government to seduce, if they want to, the House of Representatives from their duty to the people, and the ability of the Senate to influence the House of Representatives. Therefore, with less power to abuse, the federal representatives will be less tempted on one side and doubly watched on the other.
[7] Federalist Paper # 84 [paragraph 6]
Prohibiting titles of nobility is important. This is the cornerstone of republican government. As long as titles are excluded, there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other than that of the people.
#Federa;istPapers #FoundingFathers #Constitution #AbuseofPower #Aristocracy