Tag: James madison

Usufruct

No, not a misspelling, and no, it has nothing to do with high fructose corn syrup or inedible holiday Fruit Cake.  I came across this word almost three decades ago when reading Peter Onuff’s Jeffersonian Legacies, an edited compilation of essays following a scholarly conference celebrating Thomas Jefferson’s 250th birthday.  

Herbert Sloan’s essay “The Earth Belongs in Usufruct to the Living,” deconstructs Jefferson’s September 1789 letter to James Madison.  Usufruct, basically as Jefferson knew the word, was the right to use something during one’s lifetime, like land or other property, but not destroy the value of the property through misuse, or, in in some instances, generating debts that are worth more than the property.  

He expresses his concerns in the letter whether one generation can “bind” the next generation to its debts. He thinks this issue has not been thoroughly thought through as the new Constitution comes into effect, at least metaphysically. Jefferson wrote, “[T]he earth belongs in usufruct to the living, that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.  The portion occupied by an individual cease to be his when himself ceases to be. & reverts the society.”  That is, when a generation dies off, so too should its debts. Those debts are more than pecuniary, he implied.

He expands on this theme throughout the letter, thinking aloud, and through his own arithmetic of averages of life expectancies, argued to Madison that a constitution, and laws the emanate from it, should expire after 19 years.  An average, he surmised when one generation succeeds another.   Every generation, he argued should be able to make its own laws and government, and I would surmise, even remake the social contract.  Basically, new generations should not be bound or governed by outdated laws or drown in the debts contracted by a generation long dead.  He was particularly concerned with debt.  Yet ironically, he died a debtor.

He gave one example of how the new Constitution, ratified and placed into effect in 1789, addressed this issue of government debt.   The Constitution gave congress the enumerated right to wage war, vice the chief executive:  “We have already given in example one effectual check to the Dog of war, by transferring the power of letting him loose from the Executive to the Legislative body, from those who are to spend to those who are to pay.”  

We, as a nation, squandered that gift of restricting a King — or a President — from declaring or making war.  Congress handed back the ability to wage war beyond our borders to the President with the War Powers Resolution Act of 1973 (ironically an act designed to limit executive powers).  This limited power to wage war by the Executive was dramatically expanded in 2001, after Congress gave the President power to wage war against terrorism, in the so-called global war on terrorism.  But I don’t want to write about Trump’s march to war against Venezuela using those 2001 powers, or his new Monroe Doctrine of imperialism to dominate the Western Hemisphere through force of arms, but to a real existential threat to our country: anthropogenic climate change.

For generations, fiscal conservatives have used a version of Jefferson’s usufruct principle to argue against a growing national debt.  They contended that future generations should not be burdened by huge debts, which sap economic growth and weight workers with heavy taxes.  At least that was their argument, until it wasn’t.  When it comes to saddling the next generations with huge climate debts that must be paid as mother nature demands it, conservatives are not only mute about this principle of usufruct, but chant along with Trump, “drill baby drill.’  

This Administration’s policy of increasing fossil fuel consumption, destroying renewable energy initiatives, undermining electric vehicles, and hobbling renewable energy manufacturing and infrastructure — so that Trump and wealthy elites can profit and live in splendor — at the expense of unborn generations, is astounding.  It is immoral and criminal to condemn unborn children to a dystopian world of climate disaster by a bunch of fat old white men who will be soon moldering in their own graves.   

Jefferson was right.  A generation — our’s in particular — has an obligation to be good stewards of America’s natural resources and bounty so that future generations are not bound by destructive practices that degrade and pollute our water, our air, our food, and our climate out of greed and ignorance. 

The baby boomers had a chance after the publication of Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring, but like the war powers fiasco, we squandered our chances long ago to do right by Mother Nature and future generations.  Shame, shame on us.  The next generations have no obligation to forgive us, nor should they.  Sorry Gen Z and the Millennials, we royally screwed you by binding you to a no-win situation regarding climate change.  Mother Nature is not as forgiving as an accountant in the Congressional Budget Office.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year. Yes, even in these trying times one must have hope. I will be taking a break over the holidays so see you in the new year. Thanks.

   

A Virginian’s “Notes” on the Constitution

This week, after another dismal showing by the Supreme Court, I asked myself whether our Constitution is all smoke and mirrors.  A Potemkin Village.  A parchment signifying nothing.  Like Macbeth’s soliloquy for his dead wife, “a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage, full of sound and fury signifying nothing.”  

At least that is how I interpreted a recent series of Supreme Court’s shadow docket rulings.  As someone who spent 29 years in law enforcement and for decades closely read the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center’s quarterly summaries of federal court rulings as they pertained to constitutional rights, it is my considered judgment that the Supreme Court has abandoned sanity and the rule of law in favor of partisan power.  

One of my favorite references as to the intent of the framers of our Constitution is James Madison’s ‘Notes on the Constitutional Convention.’  My copy is well worn, with markers and scribbles in the margins and since January 20 has been a constant companion.   I even had Chief Justice Scalia sign it when he visited the embassy in Lisbon when I was assigned there between 2005 and 2008.

Every time the Supreme Court makes a ruling, I go to Madison’s ‘Notes’ — and the Federalist essays — and read the debates at the convention relevant to the issue the Court just decided.  The delegates at the convention did not leave many stones unturned in their debates, disputes we continue to dredge up and debate to this day. As for the conservative super majority, who fancy themselves die hard textualists and originalists, they seem to ignore the intent, spirit, and tone of the constitutional convention when it suits them, if not the very text of the Constitution.  

The ‘Notes,’ are a compilation of Madison’s minutes of the daily proceedings of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia during the scorching summer months of 1787.  It was published posthumously some 50 years after the convention.  Revised and amended by Madison over the 50 years before publication, one must approach the ‘Notes’ cautiously.  Nonetheless, they are a remarkable account of the discourse and debates that resulted in our Constitution.  Madison’s summaries of the day-to-day debates, however flawed, provided unique insights into the worldview of the delegates that created our government and fundamental laws of the land. 

Our Constitution was radical and captured the spirit and ideas of over 300 years of renaissance and enlightenment thinking, enshrining into a written constitution the primacy of the people as sovereign:  We the people.  Nonetheless, our new Constitution was far from perfect.  In fact, it was deeply flawed because those at the convention convinced themselves that slavery was on its way to extinction, that it would diffuse and extinguish itself soon.  Instead, they ended up sacrificing generations of captive African Americans to slavery for the sake of white national unity.  As it turned out, they only deferred our country’s reckoning with slavery until 1861.  It would take a ‘second’ founding after a Civil War to amend the Constitution to reflect the original premise of the Declaration of Independence, the bit about equality. 

Our founding thinkers did not invent democracy, republics, or even the concept of separation of powers.  The ideas that animated their debates go back to Greece and Rome,16th century Republics such as Florence, Renaissance writers such as Machiavelli, and later enlightenment thinkers such as Montesquieu, Hume, and Rousseau.  If anything, our founders took their history seriously.  They believed in the ancient notion of virtuous leaders and feared the mob, that is the tyranny of the majority.  

The result a novel invention of a republic with two sovereigns – sovereign states within a sovereign federal union – and a hybrid government mix of the one, the few, the many (President, Senate, House of Representatives).   The key ingredient: built in checks and balances.  In short, compromise.  A word now considered a pejorative by right wing conservatives.  

They codified their fears into hard checks and balances into our founding document.  Co-equal branches of government, designed to check one another out of jealousy for one’s own power.  That is the foundation, the spine, the bedrock, whatever metaphor you want to use, of our Constitution.  Without checks and balances it collapses like a dying star.  

Our history is complex.  On the one hand, America has a legacy of horrific racist policies since independence from England: slavery, ethnic cleansing of Native Americans, Chinese Exclusion Act, Separate but Equal segregation, interment of Japanese Americans are but a few.   But there was also the New Deal, the long Civil Rights movement, and women’s suffrage. Through all this our constitutional system – the mechanics — functioned as designed for the most part.

The mechanics of our system is collapsing.  Since January 20, ruling by decree, Trump is squashing America’s rule of law like a junkyard car crusher.   The cowards in Congress mute as they render themselves into useless piles of worthless scrap.   While Democrat leaders twirled and lurched like bungling idiots during the initial onslaught of presidential decrees, the lower courts held their ground, pausing many of these orders after hearing arguments.  Unsung men and women if you ask me.  For the most part the appeals courts also held firm.  

The Supreme Court on the other hand is a disaster, ripping out the valves, pistons, and belts that kept our system humming.  They continue to hand Trump unprecedented powers one shadow docket ruling after another.  And in their own power grab, kneecapping the lower courts.  In many cases, rulings are announced without even offering an explanatory opinion: the ‘why.’  Mostly I think because they don’t have a legally sound ‘why’ to back up their decrees.   Yes, that is what their rulings have become in essence under this regime of shadow dockets: Decrees.  Like a solar eclipse, the proliferation of these rulings is thrusting the rule of law into darkness, something one sees in authoritarian regimes. 

So, here is where we are now. 

In Philadelphia 238 years ago, a group of delegates representing 12 of the 13 states, assembled, debated, and drafted the rudimentary structure of a new type of government never seen before.  The great experiment began.  They knew the document they produced wasn’t perfect, and they recognized the need to be able to change the document with the times, outlining a process to amend the Constitution through considered debate and argument.  They were also cleared eyed about power and how it corrupts, building in checks and balances.  

Those checks and balances are disappearing like Epstein’s client list.  We now have a President who unilaterally rewrites the Constitution through edict and is immune from official acts that are criminal in nature; a Supreme Court that unilaterally changes the Constitution through opaque shadow rulings; a Congress and Supreme Court willfully and energetically empowering a tyrant King.  Like Macbeth’s monologue, I ask myself, “Is American democracy on its way to dusty death?”  Our candle snuffed out? 

It is not too late. The candle can be relit but will take time and effort.  We should focus on what we, in Virginia, can control.  The next step is to vote Abigail Spanberger in as Governor this November and keep our state legislature majority blue.  This November’s election will be a bellwether for the mid-terms the following year.  It is an opportunity for Virginians to send a message to Trump, the do-nothing Virginian Republican sycophants in Congress, and the Supreme Court.  

The Second Amendment and the Seizure of California’s National Guard

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Initial proposition that would become the Second Amendment

Several weeks ago under the pretext of executive power and spurious claims of out of control wide-spread protests and violence, Trump seized California’s National Guard and turned it on the citizens of Los Angeles.  Protest is not insurrection or rebellion; it is the fight to assemble and protest government actions and policies. Local police authorities in Los Angels City and County have tens of thousands of officers and the capability and will to control any lawlessness by a minority of protestors. 

California sued. The initial ruling in federal court was that the activation of the California National Guard was illegal. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals stayed the ruling almost immediately and recently ruled that Trump may continue to to retain control of the California National Guard while the State’s lawsuit continues.  California did not make a second amendment argument, but I think it should have.  I argue that Trump’s seizure of the California National Guard is a fundamental violation of the Second Amendment’s original intent.  

The first federal Congress in 1789, fearing the possibility of one day having a despotic central government, wanted to amend the Constitution to restrict the federal government’s ability to strip state militias of the ability to ‘bear arms’ (among other things). That is essentially the states’ abilities to individually or collectively resist a repressive federal government.  California’s National Guard is just such a well-regulated militia.

By seizing the California National Guard and deploying it against the wishes of the governor, Trump took away California’s right to defend itself from a despotic and corrupt President and central government.  Adding insult to injury, active-duty Marines were also deployed to Los Angeles.

If you read the Congressional debates and follow the revisions surrounding the Second Amendment, the original intent of the Second Amendment was to prohibit the federal government from seizing or disbanding state militias.  Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has so mangled and distorted the amendment in the past decades that the second amendment’s original intent is unrecognizable. 

On June 8, 1789 — 236 years ago this month — James Madison introduced nine propositions or resolutions for amending the Constitution. From these propositions the House of Representatives would derive 17 amendments, of which, ten would eventually become what is known as the Bill of Rights. Way down the list, buried in proposition four, after statements about religious freedom, freedom of speech and press, the right to peaceable assembly and petitioning for redressing of grievances, Madison, proposed what would become the second amendment.

The Annals of Congress contains the record of the running debates surrounding the amendments to the Constitution and reflect contemporaneous conceptions of the meanings of these amendments, and how they changed over the debates. Madison, borrowing from the other state constitutions and even the 1689 English Bill of Rights, proposed the following language regarding the right to bear arms (House Records, pp. 451-452):

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Madison’s propositions did not gain much traction in Congress. Members of Congress were more concerned with the mechanics of setting up a functioning government. The debates preceding and surrounding the discussions on the proposed amendments centered on funding mechanisms and structure of the various executive departments being contemplated. Madison nonetheless persisted, and on July 21 requested further consideration of the amendments. After “desultory” conversation on the amendments, they were referred to a committee of eleven, which included Madison.

Just short of a month later, the committee of eleven finished their work on the proposed amendments and presented them to the House of Representatives on August 17. Madison’s language on bearing arms was revised and read:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms (House Records, p.778)

Eldridge Gerry of Massachusetts, a veteran of the constitutional convention in Philadelphia in 1787, and who was one of three delegates who refused to sign the Constitution at the end of the convention, led the debate regarding the amendment to bear arms. His remarks are crucial, I think to understanding, the intent of this amendment. He states:

“This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the Government; if we could suppose that, in all cases, the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed (p. 778).”

Not one person during the debate contradicted or challenged Gerry’s assertion, which seems to state that the ability to keep and bear arms referred to the people’s ability to form militias as a collective defense against a tyrannical central government. The remainder of the debate that day on this amendment surrounded primarily the question of religious scruples and service in the militia.

After more “desultory” (I love that word) conversation, 17 proposed amendments to the Constitution were sent to the Senate on August 24. The bearing arms amendment was number 5 and read after some minor tweaking (Senate record, pp. 63-64):

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

On September 4, the senate, whose records of debate are not as detailed as the House’s records of debate, showed that senators objected to a few of the amendments, but without comment as to why. “On the motion to adopt the fifth article of the amendments proposed by the House of Representatives, amended to read as followeth: ‘a well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed:’ It passed in the affirmative” (Senate Record, p. 71).

That senate version is today’s second amendment.

Trump’s actions run counter to the second amendment and are provocative and meant to inflame the citizens of Los Angeles and California.  He deliberately and recklessly tried to provoke a larger conflict and failed.  Now, instead of quelling protests, they are being used as an occupying army – with police powers – to accompany militarized ICE agents.  

It is not a good sign of democratic health when federal law enforcement agents dress and act like soldiers and the military act like police officers.  The stark historical difference between civilian police and the military are dangerously blurred and will eventually disappear.  For a president who increasingly sees military action as a solution to both domestic – blue states — and overseas issues we will witness an increase of National Guard activations and deployments to suppress domestic opposition soon I fear.  

If the Supreme Court sides with Trump, how will we, denizens of Virginia, defend itself from Trump’s provocations, corruption, and illegalities when Abigail Spanberger is elected governor this November and Virginia becomes a State with a blue governor?  

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments: How The Supreme Court, Trump, and the Far Right intend to undermine the First Amendment

The Supreme Court recently heard oral arguments whether Oklahoma state tax dollars must be used to fund religious-based charter schools.  The state denied a Catholic Church school’s request for public funding.  During the arguments, most justices seem inclined to require that states provide taxpayer dollars to religious charter schools, if they meet all the other charter school requirements.  If the Court decides to require public funds go to support religious-based charter schools, this would be a fundamental reinterpretation of the 1st Amendment, what Thomas Jefferson called the “wall of separation” between church and state in his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist Association.

I don’t think it a coincidence that a week or so after the Supreme Courts’ arguments, Trump signed an executive order establishing a “Religious Liberty Commission.”  The purpose of the commission is outlined in the instructions:

“The Commission shall produce a comprehensive report on the foundations of religious liberty in America, the impact of religious liberty on American society, current threats to domestic religious liberty, strategies to preserve and enhance religious liberty protections for future generations, and programs to increase awareness of and celebrate America’s peaceful religious pluralism. Specific topics to be considered by the Commission under these categories shall include the following areas: the First Amendment rights of pastors, religious leaders, houses of worship, faith-based institutions, and religious speakers; attacks across America on houses of worship of many religions; debanking of religious entities; the First Amendment rights of teachers, students, military chaplains, service members, employers, and employees; conscience protections in the health care field and concerning vaccine mandates; parents’ authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children, including the right to choose a religious education; permitting time for voluntary prayer and religious instruction at public schools; Government displays with religious imagery; and the right of all Americans to freely exercise their faith without fear or Government censorship or retaliation.”

While the language seems religion neutral, we all know this is about Christian religious freedoms and establishing Christianity as America’s established religion.  I don’t see Islamic or Buddhist or Hindu religious imagery being displayed next to the Ten Commandments at public schools.  Do you?  Be very afraid.   Our founding generation was fearful of the establishment of a religious state.  This fear animated two of Virginia’s most influential writers and thinkers:  James Madison and Thomas Jefferson.  

When Virginia’s General Assembly wanted to impose a ‘religious assessment,’ basically a tax to support churches, Madison and Jefferson opposed the measure.  As did the Baptist’s who suffered intolerable abuse by the Anglican Church prior to the Revolution.  In the “Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments” Madison penned a cogent argument that is a relevant today as it was in 1785.  

I think it one of the seminal documents in our history as both Virginians and Americans.  As such, I have summarized Madison’s 15 key arguments below. They are worth a close read.

  1.  Religious liberty was “in its nature an unalienable right….because the opinions of men, depending only upon the evidence contemplated by their own minds, cannot follow the dictates of other men….  Religion is wholly exempt from the cognizance [of civil society].”
  2. “Since civil society itself had not right to interfere with religion, certainly the legislature, its creature, had no such right.”
  3. “It is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties… Who does no see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same case any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other sects?”
  4. “The exercise of religion implies the right to believe in no religion at all, so even the most permissive tax to support religion might violate some consciences.”
  5. “Civil magistrates can properly neither judge religious truth nor subordinate religion to public purposes.”
  6. The Christian religion did not need civil support, it had often “existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them.”
  7. “’Ecclesiastical establishment,’ far from promoting religious purity and efficacy, had nearly always corrupted and stultified it.”
  8. “Rather than promoting order and freedom in civil society, religious establishments had ordinarily been malignant and oppressive.”
  9. “The assessment marked a first step toward bigotry, differing from the ‘inquisition…in degree,’ and would make Virginia no longer the asylum for the persecuted.”
  10. “Good and useful citizens would be driven from the state or deterred from coming there by a religious tax.”
  11. “Religious strife and violence would be encouraged by laws touching religion.”
  12. “The policy of the bill is adverse to the diffusion of the light of Christianity…. The bill with an ignoble and unchristian timidity would circumscribe it, with a wall of defence, against the encroachment of error.”
  13. “An attempt to enforce a religious assessment obnoxious to many citizens would weaken respect for law and order generally.”
  14. “Evidence was strong that a majority of the people opposed the assessment.”
  15. “Because, finally, the equal right of every citizen to the free exercise of his Religion according to the dictates of conscience is held by the same tenure with all our other rights…. Either we must say, that they may control the freedom of the press, may abolish trial by jury, may swallow up the Executive and Judiciary powers of the State, may that they may despoil us of our very right to suffrage and erect themselves into an independent and hereditary assembly: or we must say, that they have no authority to enact into law the Bill under consideration.”

The Bill did not pass and a year later, Jefferson’s Statute for Religious freedom passed into law.  We must remain vigilant against trespasses against the 1st Amendment.  It is the cornerstone of why religiosity thrives in America.  It is the absence of state control in public spaces that permits churches, and mosques and synagogues and tabernacles and temples to spread and flourish across this country.