Benefits of Federalism Federalist 23 to 26

The Last post (http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/11/benefits-of-federalism-survey-of.html) contains numerous quotes from Federalist papers 1-27. Most of those quotes are gems from the wisdom of Jay, Hamilton and Madison in their efforts to justify a Federal Union, but I'm not quoting those things for my own sake. I'm trying to extract from their discussion what they thought the benefits and principles of Federalism should be, and also to extract some universal principles from their efforts. I haven't simply cherry picked the quotes. I picked illustrative ones, and skipped some real gems because they were either illustrative of something demonstrated elsewhere. May have missed some real gems, but I'm continuing my review. Federalist papers 23 to 28 continue Hamilton's exposition of the value of Union to the common defense, and also discuss the fears of anti-Federalists that the Federation could (one day) be an autocratic instrument for repressing the people with a standing army. Hamilton certainly did not believe the authorities of this power should be limited. He notes:

“The authorities essential to the common defense are these: to raise armies; to build and equip fleets; to prescribe rules for the government of both; to direct their operations; to provide for their support. These powers ought to exist without limitation, BECAUSE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO FORESEE OR DEFINE THE EXTENT AND VARIETY OF NATIONAL EXIGENCIES, OR THE CORRESPONDENT EXTENT AND VARIETY OF THE MEANS WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY TO SATISFY THEM. The circumstances that endanger the safety of nations are infinite, and for this reason no constitutional shackles can wisely be imposed on the power to which the care of it is committed. This power ought to be coextensive with all the possible combinations of such circumstances; and ought to be under the direction of the same councils which are appointed to preside over the common defense.”

Hamilton isn't talking about unlimited power to the executive, but to the national Congress. But he's also indicating the powers of the executive to respond to diplomatic and military events. This was a rational argument:

“This is one of those truths which, to a correct and unprejudiced mind, carries its own evidence along with it; and may be obscured, but cannot be made plainer by argument or reasoning. It rests upon axioms as simple as they are universal; the MEANS ought to be proportioned to the END; the persons, from whose agency the attainment of any END is expected, ought to possess the MEANS by which it is to be attained.”

Once we agreed together to act together to defend ourselves and put a prohibition on use of arms (see previous post) against each other, Hamilton notes that it follows that:

“Whether there ought to be a federal government [e]ntrusted with the care of the common defense, is a question in the first instance, open for discussion; but the moment it is decided in the affirmative, it will follow, that that government ought to be clothed with all the powers requisite to complete execution of its trust. And unless it can be shown that the circumstances which may affect the public safety are reducible within certain determinate limits; unless the contrary of this position can be fairly and rationally disputed, it must be admitted, as a necessary consequence, that there can be no limitation of that authority which is to provide for the defense and protection of the community, in any matter essential to its efficacy that is, in any matter essential to the FORMATION, DIRECTION, or SUPPORT of the NATIONAL FORCES.” [Federalist 23]

And the defense of the nation isn't just military, we found out starting with the civil war and reinforced by the lessons of the Panama Canal that a top rated Health Service and Health Service infrastructure is as important to the National Defense as armies. Without a functional and well commanded health service the country is vulnerable to epidemics and disease with related impacts to the readiness and productivity of our workforce and armed forces. Hamilton clearly (as does every patriotic leader since) places the scope of the Federal Government in any area of governance that is within the “NATIONAL INTEREST”^{Fed 23} And in Federalist 24 Hamilton emphasizes the importance of vesting the raising and provisioning of troops in the Legislature, a responsibility Congress has abrogated recently. He summarizes in a footnote citing several State Constitutions:

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.”^{Fed 24}

He then notes notes that “This is, in truth, rather a CAUTION than a PROHIBITION.” And quotes 4 State Constitutions that clarify:

“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE LEGISLATURE'”^{Fed 24}

When they talk about "the legislature" they are talking in general. And the reason things in the National Interest should be under the control of the National Legislature is as he explained previously. Duty, responsibility and capability have to go together in order for a system to be functional.

Monopoly of Force

Hamilton reemphasizes the importance of the Federal Government having a monopoly of Military Force in Federalist 25:

“The framers of the existing Confederation, fully aware of the danger to the Union from the separate possession of military forces by the States, have, in express terms, prohibited them from having either ships or troops, unless with the consent of Congress. The truth is, that the existence of a federal government and military establishments under State authority are not less at variance with each other than a due supply of the federal treasury and the system of quotas and requisitions.” ^{Fed 25}

In Federalist 26 Hamilton talks about the necessity and limitations of restraining the "legislative authority" with regards to the power of the legislature to provide for the common defense. The reason for this he describes in the eliptical language of the 19th century:

“IT WAS a thing hardly to be expected that in a popular revolution the minds of men should stop at that happy mean which marks the salutary boundary between POWER and PRIVILEGE, and combines the energy of government with the security of private rights. A failure in this delicate and important point is the great source of the inconveniences we experience, and if we are not cautious to avoid a repetition of the error, in our future attempts to rectify and ameliorate our system, we may travel from one chimerical project to another; we may try change after change; but we shall never be likely to make any material change for the better.”

Power corrupts, and power has privileges that go with it, so this boundary between power and privilege is always subject to assault by those whose hunger for power is matched by a hunger for privilege and the powers that enable such privilege; private fortune, private advantage, etc... Locke identified such corruption with tyranny itself ("Private, separate Advantage" [199])] Recognizing the risk of corruption, arrogation of power and tyranny, that comes with provisioning or maintaining standing armies Hamilton continues the assertion in Federalist 26 that this authority has to be under the control of a representative legislation to control such risks. And he associates it with the requirement that Congress should not appropriate money for hte Army for more than 2 years at a time. But the issue is how to avoid the dangers of Standing armies assaulting the People's liberty. Sadly, he doesn't provide a remedy, just a warning:

“It has been said that the provision which limits the appropriation of money for the support of an army to the period of two years would be unavailing, because the Executive, when once possessed of a force large enough to awe the people into submission, would find resources in that very force sufficient to enable him to dispense with supplies from the acts of the legislature. But the question again recurs, upon what pretense could he be put in possession of a force of that magnitude in time of peace? If we suppose it to have been created in consequence of some domestic insurrection or foreign war, then it becomes a case not within the principles of the objection; for this is levelled against the power of keeping up troops in time of peace. Few persons will be so visionary as seriously to contend that military forces ought not to be raised to quell a rebellion or resist an invasion; and if the defense of the community under such circumstances should make it necessary to have an army so numerous as to hazard its liberty, this is one of those calamaties for which there is neither preventative nor cure. It cannot be provided against by any possible form of government; it might even result from a simple league offensive and defensive, if it should ever be necessary for the confederates or allies to form an army for common defense.”[Federalist 26]

Sadly this anticipates both the exigensies of the Civil War, when the South raised their own army against the North. And Iran Contra, when Ronald Reagan in a flagrant example of high crimes and misdemeanors privately funded his CIA operations in defiance of the Boland Amendment. In the Iran Contra situation the real crime was that Reagan (and maybe renegade elements in the CIA from before his time) found their own source of funds for their program to destroy Communism and human rights around the world in the name of "Democracy" and "Capitalism".

But he also explains why we had to do it anyway.

“But it is an evil infinitely less likely to attend us in a united than in a disunited state; nay, it may be safely asserted that it is an evil altogether unlikely to attend us in the latter situation. It is not easy to conceive a possibility that dangers so formidable can assail the whole Union, as to demand a force considerable enough to place our liberties in the least jeopardy, especially if we take into our view the aid to be derived from the militia, which ought always to be counted upon as a valuable and powerful auxiliary. But in a state of disunion (as has been fully shown in another place), the contrary of this supposition would become not only probable, but almost unavoidable.”[Federalist 26]

Hamilton is warning us that we are more likely to get tyrants out of constant infighting and disunion than from our common and united efforts. Our history has born out that when we have a clear sense of a common enemy we unite. When we don't we divide into petty conflicts.

When I started this survey I was just going to share a couple of quotes. But I see now this is going to be a longer series and I'll probably have to edit and break up the previous post into smaller ones.

Why We Need a National Health Service

The Constitution was designed for a Networked but Federated system for responding to national threats. The founders divided into groups around George Washington, who would prefer a National Military ("Continental Army") and others who wanted more localized militia. But they all agreed on the need for collaboration and coordination. They just weren't sure on how to achieve that goal as militia forces had weaknesses in training and discipline and were not always effective over trained, disciplined "professional" forces like the infamous redcoats we fought during our revolt from Britain. The constitution spells out the powers of congress on our national operations including the duty and power to organize arm, and discipline a national militia.

Clearly the Federal Government is responsible for defending the country from all threats. And the founders clearly envisioned a medical component for the militia, though the science of health and the military was in it's primitive state when the constitution was written. Folks defending the Affordable Care Act were able to cite the 1792 Militia Act which mandated that militia members provide their own arms and the Seamans Act, which mandated that Ships carry insurance on seamen.

But I'm not defending private solutions for our health care issues. The authority for the arms requirement of the USA militia is in Article 1 Section 8 of the constitution as well as the commerce clause. I'm citing these because it is clear that the principle of Federalism involves collaboration and cooperation directed from a general staff with consent of legislatures and local government -- and that has been focused on national services from the beginning of our country. We need a National Health Service organized along militia principles.

Article 1 Section 8 Militia

The Surgeon General is an old position. He should be the Article 1, Section 8 head of a National Health Service Militia which should be the organizing, provisioning and disciplining body for that service under the supervision of congress. The Surgeon General should also be responsible for governing such part of them as employed in the Service of the United States. It should have 50+ membership branches (with intermediate administrative branches by region for organization purposes) with each member at the employ of the States. This National MHS and it's officers and education should be shared collaboratively between the member governors and the Surgeon General. The National MHS would have a governors Board composed of delegates from each subdivision and a legislative advisory board elected by general members (interested people) of the MHS.

Such organizations, being collaborative between States and Federal Government would be explicitly constitutional, but including a legislative advisory body within them ensures that Federal principles are replicated within the States. To do that right this principle needs to be replicated within each state as well. A section 4 Republican guarantee to every State involves replicating this structure within each State so that Hospitals, Schools, clinics, Towns, Counties and Cities are involved in this system and represented in it's governance.

What is missing from most of our top down bureaucracies is a rational legislature. A principle of good requirements and good lawmaking is involving the stakeholders in making such laws. A legislative advisory organization led by experts and elected representatives of an expert community can provide such guidance in an excellent way. This is what we need to organize our response to both emergency and to budget and policy decision making. Collaboration and bottom up forms to counter the effectiveness and inertia of top down decision making.

I propose that the HS include a HS membership organization (which can be an umbrella with chapters and subchapters) with formal advisory powers. It should be self governing and self-funding through membership or similar fees and independently bottom up run. It would be self governing over those parts of it's membership that are self funding. This would be a formal organization with open general membership and a "bar" of people of good character with voting powers and officer eligibility.

Federal Government as Collaborative Government.

The original vision of the Founders was of a country that would be a collaboration between the states. It also is one of Federalism and Commonwealth. It was not intended to be yet another incarnation of the Top Down bureaucratic Imperium of Rome. It was supposed to be a new idea of a new government that would be as Lincoln said "of the people, for the people and by the people". And we can make it so.

Discussion

Constitution on militia:

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

1792 Militia Act which mandated that militia members provide their own arms:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia by the captain or commanding officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this act. And it shall at all times hereafter be the duty of every such captain or commanding officer of a company to enroll every such citizen, as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of eighteen years, or being of the age of eighteen years and under the age of forty-five years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by a proper non-commissioned officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/06/26/george-washingtons-individual-mandates/

Seamans Act:

In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington. That’s right, the father of our country had no difficulty imposing a health insurance mandate.[...]

Six years later, in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. And you know what this Congress, with five framers serving in it, did? It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.

That's from Einer Elhauge, a professor at Harvard Law, who continues, "not only did most framers support these federal mandates to buy firearms and health insurance, but there is no evidence that any of the few framers who voted against these mandates ever objected on constitutional grounds. Presumably one would have done so if there was some unstated original understanding that such federal mandates were unconstitutional."

Cliven Bundy and his insurrectionist, subversive and rebellious followers

I was having fun at the [ https://www.facebook.com/events/688187351242203/] and got to read up on the Bundy ranch and the hijinks there. Got to learn about the Moapa Paiute Indians and their efforts to build a solar power plant to replace the coal fired one they have there. And to find out the real deal on who Cliven Bundy is. I want to share my findings so I don't have to repeat the research.

One: The Bundies have not been on that ranch more than 60 years.

This article reports that:

"Clark County Recorder documents show the 160-acre Bunkerville ranch Bundy calls home was purchased by his parents, David and Bodel Bundy, from Raoul and Ruth Leavitt on Jan. 5, 1948. The purchase included the transfer to the Bundys of certain water rights, including water from the nearby Virgin River. Cliven Bundy was born in 1946."

So his claim that his family has been on that ranch since the 1870's is a lie.

http://www.8newsnow.com/story/25302186/an-abbreviated-look-at-rancher-cliven-bundys-family-history

Two: The land that they are claiming is not their land and never was.

Bundy didn't start grazing cattle on BLS land until 1954.

"1998 opinion from U.S. District Judge Johnnie Rawlinson" found that "it wasn’t until roughly 1954 that “Bundy or his father or both have grazed livestock on public lands owned by the United States and administered by the BLM.”"

So the land wasn't his before 1954 by squatters rights either.

Three: They are scofflaws not victims of Federal Perfidy

The Los Vegas Sun reports on the amount that Bundy owes as follows: Question "How much does Bundy owe the Government:"

"A. Depends who you ask. He’ll tell you that he has refused to pay the BLM grazing fees since 1993, bringing his tab to about $300,000. But the government says he owes $1 million and will have to pay for the some of the round-up costs."

http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/11/q-behind-bundy-blm-battle/

Alan O'Neill claims that Bundy is actually a bully

The Las Vegas Sun also reports an article from Alan O'Neill who had to deal with him in the 90's:

" I served as superintendent of the Lake Mead National Recreation Area for the National Park Service from 1987 to 2000. In 1993, we reduced the number of cows that could be grazed on the Bunkerville allotment to 150 because of the emergency listing of the desert tortoise as an endangered species."

The Republicans make fun of this and don't deny it happened.

Because Bundy refused to remove his cattle to meet the 150 level and ignored repeated requests to do so, his permit was canceled in 1994 and the allotment was closed to grazing.

Bundy didn't accept that decision,

"As the news coverage has reported, Bundy continues to graze his cattle and has refused to pay the BLM a grazing fee. The figure he owes the government exceeds $300,000. The estimate of cattle being grazed illegally since 1994 on the old Bunkerville allotment have ranged from 550 to more than 900."

So he's been violating the law since 1993. And he did contest it in court, but failed:

"It is unfathomable to me that 20 years after the Bunkerville allotment was canceled in 1994, we are still wrestling with getting his cattle off the range. And there were issues of overgrazing that allotment before 1994. It is my opinion that the BLM and the Park Service have done everything possible administratively to try to resolve the issue amicably. In addition, there are two federal court rulings upholding the agencies’ position, and the most recent ruling demanded Bundy not physically interfere with any seizure or impoundment operation."

Not that it made any difference to him.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/06/rancher-land-dispute-bully-not-hero/

Four: The right is trying to instigate insurrection

Bundy is a bully who has used his threat of a range war and to do “whatever it takes” to stop the government from impounding his cattle to scare public officials.

And that includes shooting marshals.

The implications are that he would resort to a gunbattle. And who wants to see another Waco? I was one of those public officials who were told to back off at one point because of concern for violence.

What Bundy is doing is a criminal act, and he should be accountable for his actions rather than be held up as a hero fighting the federal government.

But of course instead of supporting rule of law Hannity, Fox News and the Militia movement came to his support. But Alan continues:

Most of the grazing permit holders on public land are good stewards and law-abiding citizens, and Bundy is doing them a disservice with his actions. He is a perfect example of someone who publicly states that he abhors the federal government but who relies on it for his welfare.

And of course:

He is grazing free on the public’s land to the detriment of the environment and the honest taxpayers who support his welfare lifestyle.

http://lasvegassun.com/news/2014/apr/06/rancher-land-dispute-bully-not-hero/

Five: The right is subverting the constitution

The Constitution states that:

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

But of course the Bundies and militia men dispute the authority of the United States. And were threatening to fight a war against the United States:

"Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort."

Making war against BLM is treason under the constitution, not a second amendment right.

Six: The right is threatening armed rebellion in a lawless fashion.

Sean Hannity all but directly called for armed rebellion against the Federal Government.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3472854985001/cliven-bundy-harry-reid-has-no-business-in-clark-county/#sp=show-clips

Hannity has had him on the show multiple times and has encouraged his sedition. One example:

"My next guest, Cliven Bundy, is a Nevada rancher waging a battle against the federal government over his cattle grazing on public land which is overseen by the Bureau of Land Management"

And Hannity, endorsing him asked him how far he'd go, and Bundy said:

"My statement to the American people, I'll do whatever it takes to gain our liberty and freedom back."

http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2014/04/10/nevada-rancher-threatens-range-war-against-federal-government

In this April 15th clip he practically egged him on while blaming Harry Reid:

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3472854985001/cliven-bundy-harry-reid-has-no-business-in-clark-county/#sp=show-clips

Seven: The Folks trying to build a solar power plant are the Moapa Paiute Indians

The Moapa Paiute, with the help of both father Senator Harry Reid, and son, were able to get what they needed to build a Solar power plant for selling electricity to Los Angelos:

Keith Rogers in the LAS VEGAS REVIEW-JOURNAL [http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/moapa-solar-plant-deal-signed] writes:

The sun is shining more brightly on the Moapa River Indian Reservation today.

So while Cliven [Al from Married with children's prototype?] Bundy and his followers are full of incoherent rage and fear. The Moapa Paiute are feeling good because:

"Council members for the city of Los Angeles approved a $1.6 billion, 25-year pact Tuesday to purchase solar power from a company that will build nearly 1 million photovoltaic panels on tribal land."

Which is win/win for Nevada, the Paiute Indians, and Los Angelos.

"I just can't believe that we're actually going to have something like this on the reservation," Moapa Band of Paiutes Chairman William Anderson said after arriving at McCarran International Airport on a flight from Los Angeles, a few hours after the council made its unanimous decision to purchase power from K Road Moapa Solar.

Which is nowhere near the Bundy ranch.

"We are going to have a solar farm and jobs for our people," Anderson, 39, said about the 320 members of the Moapa band.

Just the maintenance on this will employ caretakers and electricians for years.

They will serve as landlords and provide sand and gravel for the project, the largest solar plant on tribal lands in the United States.

Which means that nobody is stiffing the Paiute (for a change), and everyone will benefit.

Expected to go online in 2016, the 250-megawatt solar farm will generate enough electricity for 118,000 homes more than 280 miles away in Los Angeles.

And though I'd like to see more solar cells on those homes, this ia great start!

Anderson said the farm consisting of some 910,000 solar panels will be built on 2,000 acres on the 71,680-acre reservation. It will be across from the tribe's Moapa Travel Plaza truck stop, west of the Valley of Fire exit off Interstate 15, about 35 miles northeast of Las Vegas. It will be southwest of NV Energy's coal-fired Reid Gardner power station, which the tribe blames for health problems.

Again, nowhere near the Bundy Ranch.

So this is a win/win deal for the Paiute. No Feds stealing their land here!

http://www.reviewjournal.com/business/energy/moapa-solar-plant-deal-signed

There is no plot from Senator Reid and his Son to take the Bundy Ranch for a Solar plant

So why are the right maintaining that that is his dark goal?

The logic seems to be: Bundy is grazing on land that once was part of the Moapi Paiute reservation but was stolen in the 1800's. Obama and Reid helped the Moapi Paiute get some of their property back. Bundy's supporters are afraid the Indigenous want their land back out of guilt (since the previous owner probably helped pressure the Feds to steal it in the first place -- bundies only there since 40's) therefore in typical loopy Faux reasoning Reid (and the Indians -- but they won't say that) want the land back so they can build a solar power plant on it. Okay, I get the paranoia now. So now they send a faux reporter to the Reservation to elicit sympathetic comments about Bundy. Well I'm sympathetic with the old arsefart too. I understand how it hurts to give back nearly a million in grazing fees.

SNOPES debunks the allegations against Harry Reid here in an article [http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp]

"The site that ENN Mojave Energy was planning to buy in order to build a solar plant is nowhere near the public land Bundy has been disputing with the government, and ENN gave up the solar project and terminated its agreement to buy land to house it as far back as June 2013:

"A Chinese-backed company is pulling the plug on a multibillion-dollar solar project near Laughlin after it was unable to find customers for the power that would have been generated there, a Clark County spokesman said."

SNOPES notes that even Breitbart backed off this BS:

"Despite the obvious partisan gain to be had if Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's son Rory (a failed 2010 Nevada gubernatorial candidate) had somehow been involved in a "land grab" affecting the Bundy family ranch operation — the facts just do not pan out as such. Indeed, Rory Reid did in fact have a hand in plans to reclassify federal lands for renewable energy developments. Just northeast of Las Vegas and Nellis Air Force Base, plans were drawn by Reid allies to potentially develop 5,717 acres of land for such use. While it would be fair to claim that such activity was in Bundy's relative neighborhood, the federal lands once leased by the family were more than 20 miles away, east of Overton, Nevada." [http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#yZmJmCDLKCms2Rlp.99]

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/conspiracy/nevada.asp#yZmJmCDLKCms2Rlp.99/"

There is a lot more to write about. But this will do for now.

Thoughts on Defending Democracy and Second Amendment

Second Amendment and Switzerland

In Switzerland, the purpose of the second amendment is on display. It's cantons are each prepared against invasions that nobody in Switzerland ever expects to happens, but they are prepared to keep their neighbors neighborly. The concept behind the second amendment was invented in places like Switzerland. The purpose of the second amendment was to avoid a standing army by having a strong militia. (Snopes: Switzerland).

In Switzerland all the males are drafted. In the USA we have the National Guard, and then we have militia which often are no better than USA Nazi or fascist Brownshirts. I believe we need to bring back a nationally organized militia to avoid the brownshirts and to strengthen democracy. If we want that, maybe we need to imitate the Swiss.

Militia and Israel

In Israel they have a similar system, though they exempt too many people from it. Israel would be well off imitating the Swiss. The Swiss have multiple religions that once were at each other throats. Originally the militia also had the job of protecting Swiss protestants from Swiss Catholics as well as from outsiders. A secular militia enables freedom of religion by encouraging people to distinguish between tribal and religious identity -- and national or civic identity. If everyone is Swiss; Buddhist, Christian, Moslem or Hindu, first, then there is no reason to kill as "Non Swiss" folks who are not one's own sectual preference.

Universal Service as Civitus versus Tribus

Teaching civic identity and civic values is part of establishing and maintaining civilization. Civitus versus "tribus" is the reason the concept of "civitus" was invented in the first place. You can't have functional markets or urbanity without the ability of many disparate people coming together under uniform laws to trade and exchange. Without those common laws, and common courts, the tendency of people is to fall to clan feuding.

Sorry but markets don't govern themselves, they have to have a government to exist. A market government may look like anarchy, but the regulations, the uniform weights and measures, the money that can be trusted, etc... are all features of government necessary to a functional market.

Militias are a Republican Institution

Civitus, is also a requirement for militia. If everyone was trained in how to use a fire arm and the principles of our democracy, they also will assert a role in the civil government. If that civil government transgresses their rights, they will stand up for them. More importantly, they will not serve an illegitimate government. Militia, as in Switzerland and Israel are necessary to civil government. They are a Republican Institution. Created to defend the State, but also as a check on Standing Armies and Royal Ambitions. It is no accident that the parade ground was also the forum, was also frequently the market place, and was associated with elections. Originally only men could vote. And only men could serve in the militia. The right to defend one's liberty is associated with the right to participate in government. The basis of democracy is the right of people to participate in defending their homes. Without that right, and people fulfilling the duties associated with it, power is usurped by standing armies and authorities.

Religion and Republicanism

The right to defend oneself is also associated with religious liberty. During the English Civil wars, Catholics were disarmed under Protestant rule and Protestants were disarmed in Catholic ruled areas. Ultimately, this issue was resolved by the concept of military virtue as serving a virtuous state. Catholics, Protestants, Jews, etc... agreed to defend their country and allow all religions the freedom to worship, to protect their own freedom to worship. "Secular humanism" wasn't invented opposed to religion, that is a modern myth. Secular humanism is just an expression of the concept of "civitus" taken to modern times. A state religion denies freedom to people who exercise choice in what they believe. Heresis (choice) became "heresy" in early Christianity because of the authoritarian of the Roman and successive Empires. Without the right to participate in one's own government, militia or standing armies, would be turned on deciding which version of authoritarian religion is number one. The concept of militia is designed to protect Baptist against Anglican, Quaker against Baptist. We all unite together to protect our rights.

For more on this read:

The Palladium of Liberty

Uniform Service

Maybe, we need to bring back the militia, with a uniform "basic training" so that young adults can grow up together and responsibly use fire-arms. And they would need to have a license as a result -- and only those with such a license should be able to acquire one. So if someone has a gun, it is secured according to regulations, used by someone who knows to empty the bullets out before cleaning it, etc...

Or maybe we need to modernize the whole concept. Modern volunteerism and Emergency response, include Police, Fire, Rescue, Emergency Services, Repairs to Infrastructure, Hospitals and Clinics, Ambulance Services, etc... Pretty much every service to the people of the country has both a training and educational component, a need for local readiness and components and a national component. Perhaps we need to expand our concept of "militia" to include a panoply of services that defend our security. A strong case can be made for applying the model spelled out in the constitution to accomplish socially necessary public good. For more on this read:

The Case for Expanding the National Guard

National Emergency Service and the Militia

Inclusiveness Versus Outlaws

Criminals sometimes move outside the law on their own, but often they are pushed there by exclusion from legitimate society. The concept of civitus is around the notion we should pull them into our comity and create a civilization rather than warring communities and tribes. Even tribal communities usually have something like that. They take the kids, train them, run them through an initiation ceremony and after that they are adults, act like adults, feel they are adults and usually are ready to be adults. Militia plays that role in civilized societies on a larger scale.

And Militia is part of how modern and ancient democracy got started. The first step to democracy is the general assembly. And most general assemblies were initially of men who could fight to defend a town or village. An army can provide a rough democracy to a town and in ancient England the Yeomanry won their rights because their arrows and weapons were necessary to the survival of the British Crown in it's wars and civil wars. They won rights by being able to fight for them, and then not having to do so, because the official government; barons, clerics and officials -- had to respect them.

Representation usually came with the ability to provide armed forces as well. Our militia made the difference in our revolution against the British, but it was the unity of it, and it being led by a trained officer corps that made the difference. Hence the words "well regulated militia" in the constitution. We've had a standing army due to external wars, but if we weren't constantly war-mongering at the behest of war-profiteers we wouldn't need such a standing army. And we've traditionally drawn our standing army by drafting people who spend the rest of their obligation in militia. Police, fire, rescue, all have their origins in militia. We need to have a stronger National Guard, and train people so they can be part of our society -- and that starts with training them to be in a militia. It doesn't have to be an armed militia; fire brigades, flood brigades, medical brigades, even science and health brigades, could fill the bill too.

Using the National Guard to Defend our Security

So we should use the National Guard, strengthen it's functions, and include within it medical corps, first responder training, fire and rescue training, first aid. All the stuff folks like me learned as a boy scout. And use that institution to create a real bottom up institution to involve our young men in our society.

Anyway, I'd take most of our guns, the heavy caliber ones, and move them to armories, that would just also happen to be associated with community centers, firing ranges, and where people could learn to fire a gun, and if they wanted an AK-47 or AR-15, keep it in a gun locker under control of a Sargent there. Then should there be a disaster they'd be the first responders, not some invading army. And if someone wants to play with his assault rifle, he can do it some place where he's not going to hurt anyone. Or she.

We can get by with a smaller standing army, if we put a larger commitment to militia and to training our young people. This is the "Reserve" successor to the original Militia Idea. This should be using the constitution. A Standing Army, especially one that is mercenary and run for profit, is a danger to our Republic. Now I'd organize it on a membership basis, with National, State, county and local member branches run by full time soldiers, backed by a membership organization where militia members would have a voice in their own affairs with elected structures and general assemblies. The right to assemble is in the constitution for multiple reasons.

For More on Using the Constitution to stand up a functional Security System:

National Emergency Response and the Militia

This was one of my first posts on the subject. I've written on the subject in great detail since

Sources

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/switzerland.asp

Further Reading

ttps://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2018/07/the-palladium-of-liberty.html

What the Founders meant by Militia

How the Militia Of the Whole Concept failed in the 19th Century

FEMA, FEMA Camps and Volunteerism

I finally saw my Cousin. It had been a long time. All three of us, he his husband and myself, have gone grey. And I apologize to say it was long overdue. I'd tried to visit them with my wife a few times, but she was incredibly allergic to animals so we didn't make it for most of the time she was alive. That was a long time and I'm deeply sorry, because while it only seemed a day once I got there, my aunt was in the hospital with a stroke and is now 80 years old. I remember when she was young. I guess I'm getting old too.

Anyway he works for FEMA. Turns out, he's not full time with them. He's a volunteer. He works when they need him, not when he feels like or 40 hours a week. FEMA has reservists like the National Guard, and he's such a person. He's busy a lot. He does good things. I suspect he's in Oklahoma again right now.

After talking to him I realized that the vicious propaganda against FEMA is meant to divide people. It's like the attacks on everything else that works in the USA, vicious attacks meant to prevent people from appreciating them. In our country we always took off our shirts and helped each other. This was often more valuable than money. We have volunteer Fire Departments, the National Guard, and FEMA, and we should have more of this, not less. So the talk of FEMA building "FEMA Camps" is agitprop meant to undermine and defame the agency and prevent people from connecting with our "militia" and volunteering by defaming one of the primary agencies involved in this.

I have more to say on this topic, but I wanted to get this part off my chest first. Man I love my cousin and my Aunt. And I admire them, and all the people in my family who give so much to this country without expecting (and usually without getting) much in return.

The de-evolution of the Heritage Foundation

I used to love reading the heritage foundation's website. I knew they were spinning, but their spin was associated with facts. But now they are almost unrecognizable in their romantisation of the Gilded Age, and their misrepresentation (rewrite) of historical narrative. For example their page: notes on it's "Basics:" http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/basics#progressivism-and-liberalism page:

The Progressives were reformers in the late 19th and early 20th century who believed that in order to address modern problems, America needed to abandon the old ideas of the Founding in favor of a new expansive conception of the role of government. Progressives paved the way for modern liberalism and politics, and their core ideas are still the mainstay of today’s liberalism.

Actually the progressives were building a new more expansive FEDERAL government to oppose the corruption and power of PRIVATE governments run by monopolies and corrupt city and State governments dominated by wealth and private interest. It was said in the 1800's that the Penn Railroad ran Pennsylvania and Vanderbilt controlled New York State. So this framing is designed to sell a product not tell the truth. It is basically an effort of the rich and powerful to rewrite the historical narrative.

They then go on to list all the heroes of the period;

Some Progressives were prominent journalists such as Herbert Croly (co-founder of The New Republic), some were distinguished professors such as John Dewey and Woodrow Wilson (president of Princeton before he was President of the U.S.), and many were political leaders such as Theodore Roosevelt and Robert La Follette. Progressives could be found in both political parties: Wilson was a Democrat, Roosevelt was a Republican.

And they both try to hook people with misrepresentations of what the progressives were about, and at the same time manage to defame all the heroes of the progressive era (including people they otherwise claim to admire) with a broad brush:

The Progressives were united in their contempt for what they called the “individualism” of the Founding. Instead of a government that protects natural rights through limited, decentralized powers, they envisioned an expansive government, a “living” and evolving Constitution, and the rule of “experts” in nationally centralized administrative agencies.

Contempt for individualism

Actually their contempt was for the abusiveness of the "Horatio Alger" narrative of the lucky few pulling themselves up by non-existent bootstraps; when the reality is that most people simply wanted to make a living, improve the lives of their children and leave the world a better place for their grandchildren. The Horatio Alger myth creates a world of a one percent of "winners" and brands the other 99% as losers. And since the "economic royalists" [FDR's term] of the previous century were utterly corrupt, willing to recklessly go to war with one another [When Rockefeller laid his pipeline network he brought down the entire economy and many of the weaker railroads just to undermine his erstwhile allies in the rail industry], and owning the Senate and Courts, theirs wasn't a struggle against "individualism" but against corporate Kinglets.

Natural Rights

And DeMint turns the "natural rights" narrative on it's head too. The progressives were not against natural rights, on the contrary they sought to use the Federal Government to make sure that individuals could retain their natural rights in the face of corporate kleptocracy, rent seeking, legal theft of mineral rights and land, and monopoly. To do this they had to use "Hamiltonian methods" to advance "Jeffersonian Goals." TR would first use the power of anti-trust, and when that wasn't sufficient he came up with the idea of organizing corporations so that they could be better governed. TR's ideas never really were fully realized, and Reagan corruptly ended efforts at Anti-Trust, so the issue now remains the same for modern day Progressives. The Empire Struck back, through it's armies of attorneys. And by creating the Heritage Foundation and then corrupting it into a propaganda rag. They've not only created an astroturfed ideology, but an alternative reality. A kind of corporate version of "Game of Thrones" only with lawyers instead of armed warriors.

Living Constitution

Most of the right would also have you believe that all their precepts are based on the founding fathers, who somehow in their narrative were all rugged individualists who interpreted the constitution exactly the same and collectively wanted it frozen in ice (except where most conservatives want to chip away at it). They claim to want a literal and strict reading of the constitution, but since they ignore (conveniently) words they don't like they ignore the "militia" clause of the second amendment and ignore the 18th century meaning of "secure in one's person" since the word "privacy" in those days referred to Privy's (urinals) not privacy as we understand it now and "secure in one's person" referred to privacy. Since they are only literal or "strict" where it suits their convenience what they really want is an authoritarian or even tyrannical reading of the constitution that affirms their private separate advantage to make judgments and rule people locally with impunity. This puts the lie to their argument that it was "progressives" who wanted an expansive government. The conservatives just want that government either bought and paid for by themselves, or delegated to corporate and landlord rule. In short the argument isn't between a living constitution (since the advocates also interpret it) or a strictly interpreted one, but between a living constitution and the dead hand of local and distributed tyranny.

Experts

The one accusation that I'll grant the DeMint has a point on. And that Progressives made, was that they settled on administrative (bureaucratic) efforts to rule American Business. They started with experts, but nowadays they are likely to be well connected lawyers and the experts are either marginalized or get fired if they open their mouths. Still I'd rather have a genuinely neutral expert playing judge and having to justify his decisions than pretend creationists who are really Social Darwinists... The progressives did have faults. Just not the ones outlined by DeMint's heritage foundation.

And unfortunately regulation has become so complicated and such a round robin "captured" endeavor, that the government lawyers writing the rules are often working almost directly for the regulated, and they use their expertise to make money for the corporations once they leave government. Conservatives only pretend to complain about rent seeking, since that is the real object of de-regulation. If the Government doesn't regulate business, they locate businesses where they can kill the most [poor] people when something goes wrong -- like West Texas and then want the taxpayer to pick up the Tab, and "Gubbornment" to take the blame -- as if they weren't in fact doing much of the governing.

This adamantine romanticization of the 19th century (apparently including Antebellum Southern Slavery) is the real problem with the right in general and the Heritage Foundation and it's other organs. Folks like Jason Richwine, can't help themselves in exposing their racism, as he did in his College Thesis, because their sense of entitlement is on their sleeves and they regularly isolate themselves from reality. Prejudice is judging things before one actually studies all the angles, and that is what these articles represent. When one believes something "in advance" of evidence, one hunts for any argument to advance one's "truth".

I don't know what kind of heritage that is.

Further reading:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/08/jason-richwine-dissertation_n_3240168.html

http://www.heritage.org/initiatives/first-principles/basics#progressivism-and-liberalism

Definitions related to Democratic Republicanism

Res Publicus — Concern of the People

A Republic is a State that is governed, at least in theory, for the benefit of the whole People of that State. A state that is not governed that way is a Tyranny:

Bad Government is also tyrannical government and undemocratic government. This is a constitutional problem. It is not always a problem with laws being "unconstitutional" in the sense of not according with our wonderful national constitution. Rather, it is often a problem of bad design, of poorly constituted government. Such bad government is a result of not applying basic principles of good government to the design of government from top to bottom.