Who rules America

I'm just writing this post so I don't have to duplicate anything. Someone has done the work and consolidated in nice presentations:

http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html

This image says it all:

Src:http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Net_worth_and_financial_wealth.gif

Unfortunately the chart shows -- it's not "we the people" ruling our country.

Zero Tolerance is a Failed Concept

"Zero tolerance" ideology has been a disaster. It has led to jails being filled up with people convicted of minor crimes, while major crimes continue to go unpunished. It also has impacted our education system awfully. I talked about fighting bullying in a previous post "Bullying and What to do about it". But that post only illustrated how much a loser zero tolerance education is. Further support comes from research.

Zero Tolerance Fails

Evidence shows that Zero Tolerance policies in schools have major issues.

[This section quote references a paper by the APA: [http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance-report.pdf ( "Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations" )]

Question: "Have zero tolerance policies made schools safer and more effective in handling disciplinary issues?"

"In general, data tended to contradict the presumptions made in applying a zero tolerance approach..."

The paper notes that most of Zero Tolerance concepts are based on faulty assumptions.

Faulty Assumption 1. Violence out of control

"School violence is at a serious level and increasing, thus necessitating forceful, no-nonsense strategies for violence prevention."

Reality:

"the evidence does not support an assumption that violence in schools is out-of-control."

Faulty Assumption 2. Zero Tolerance improves Discipline consistency

"Through the provision of mandated punishment for certain offenses, zero tolerance increases the consistency of school discipline and thereby the clarity of the disciplinary message to students."

Reality:

"The evidence strongly suggests, however, that zero tolerance has not increased the consistency of school discipline. Rather, rates of suspension and expulsion vary widely across schools and school districts. Moreover, this variation appears to be due as much to characteristics of schools and school personnel as to the behavior or attitudes of students. "

Faulty Assumption 3. Removal of Students will improve learning environment for remaining students.

"Removal of students who violate school rules will create a school climate more conducive to learning for those students who remain."

Reality:

"data ... have shown the opposite effect, ... schools with higher rates of school suspension and expulsion appear to have less satisfactory ratings of school climate, less satisfactory school governance structures, and to spend a disproportionate amount of time on disciplinary matters."

Worse:

"research indicates a negative relationship between the use of school suspension and expulsion and school-wide academic achievement..."

Not only are the expulsed impacted negatively, but the reality turns out that the remaining students also receive a poorer education than expected.

Faulty Assumption 4. Swift and certain punishments of zero tolerance is a deterrent

"The swift and certain punishments of zero tolerance have a deterrent effect upon students, thus improving overall student behavior and discipline"

Reality:

"Rather than reducing the likelihood of disruption however, school suspension in general appears to predict higher future rates of misbehavior and suspension among those students who are suspended. In the long term, school suspension and expulsion are moderately associated with a higher likelihood of school dropout and failure to graduate on time."

It doesn't work as intended.

Faulty Assumption 5: Parents Support Zero Tolerance and Students Feel Safer

"Parents overwhelmingly support the implementation of zero tolerance policies to ensure the safety of schools, and students feel safer knowing that transgressions will be dealt with in no uncertain terms."

Reality:

"The data regarding this assumption are mixed and inconclusive. Media accounts and some survey results suggest that parents and the community will react strongly in favor of increased disciplinary punishments if they fear that their children’s safety is at stake. "

But on the other hand:

"On the other hand, communities surrounding schools often react highly negatively if they perceive that students’ right to an education is being threatened. Although some students appear to make use of suspension or expulsion as an opportunity to examine their own behavior, the available evidence also suggests that students in general regard school suspension and expulsion as ineffective and unfair"

Question 2: What has been the impact of ZT on students of color and students with disabilities?

Part of the appeal of zero tolerance policies has been that, by removing subjective influences or contextual factors from disciplinary decisions, such policies would be expected to be fairer to students traditionally over-represented in school disciplinary consequences.

Reality about Minorities:

" Rather, the disproportionate discipline of students of color continues to be a concern and may be increasing; over-representation in suspension and expulsion has been found consistently for African American students and less consistently for Latino students. The evidence shows that such disproportionality is not due entirely to economic disadvantage, nor is there any data supporting the assumption that African American students exhibit higher rates of disruption or violence that would warrant higher rates of discipline. Rather, African American students may be disciplined more severely for less serious or more subjective reasons. Emerging professional opinion and qualitative research findings suggest that the disproportionate discipline of students of color may be due to lack of teacher preparation in classroom management or cultural competence."

Reality about children with disabilities:

"students with disabilities, especially those with emotional and behavioral disorders, appear to be suspended and expelled at rates disproportionate to their representation in the population. "

Question 3: To what extent are zero tolerance policies developmentally appropriate as a psychological intervention, taking into account the developmental level of children and youth?

Reality

"Children are not developmentally mature enough to respond to Zero Tolerance as ASSUMEd

"Research relevant to juvenile offending has found extensive evidence of developmental immaturity. Particularly before the age of 15, adolescents appear to display psychosocial immaturity in at least four areas:"

1. poor resistance to peer influence,
2. attitudes toward and perception of risk,
3. future orientation,
4. and impulse control.

Evidence from Neuroscience

"The case for psychosocial immaturity during adolescence is also supported by evidence from developmental neuroscience indicating that the brain structures of adolescents are less well-developed than previously thought. Developmental neuroscientists believe that if a particular structure of the brain is still immature, then the functions that it governs will also show immaturity; that is, adolescents may be expected to take greater risks and reason less adequately about the consequences of their behavior."

Secondary Schools have structural Challenges

"a growing body of developmental research indicates that certain characteristics of secondary schools often are at odds with the developmental challenges of adolescence, which include the need for close peer relationships, autonomy, support from adults other than one’s parents, identity negotiation, and academic self-efficacy."

And those Structural Challenges are Aggravated by Zero Tolerance, not moderated

"Used inappropriately, zero tolerance policies can exacerbate both the normative challenges of early adolescence and the potential mismatch between the adolescent’s developmental stage and the structure of secondary schools."

Zero Tolerance doesn't do justice to the learning ability of young people and their immaturity:

"There is no doubt that many incidents that result in disciplinary infractions at the secondary level are due to poor judgment on the part of the adolescent involved."

If we were dealing with adults "zero tolerance" might be more plausible, but we are dealing with children and:

But if that judgment is the result of developmental or neurological immaturity, and if the resulting behavior does not pose a threat to safety, it is reasonable to weigh the importance of a particular consequence against the long-term negative consequences of zero tolerance policies, especially when such lapses in judgment appear to be developmentally normative."

Instead of punitive, arbitrary enforcement of rules in an extreme manner. it looks like our High Schools ought to be using the Secondary School system as a means of coaching, mentoring and also leverage peer group influence by involving them in their own government and making htat a teaching opportunity. [See my post: Bullying and What to do about it (near end of post) where I talk about setting up courts in the High Schools. Given this reports recommendations that is not a crank idea.] Let the kids run their own justice and make it a teaching opportunity with some justice and forgiveness involved.

Question 4. How has zero tolerance affected the relationship between education and the juvenile justice system?

Reality:

"There is evidence that the introduction of zero tolerance policies has affected the delicate balance between the educational and juvenile justice systems.

Increased reiance on Security personnel, technology and profiling

Zero tolerance policies appear to have increased the use and reliance in schools on strategies such as security technology, security personnel, and profiling.

Reality:

"there is as yet virtually no empirical data examining the extent to which such programs result in safer schools or more satisfactory school climate."

Profiling

Zero tolerance may have also increased the use of profiling, a method of prospectively identifying students who may be at-risk of violence or disruption by comparison to profiles of others who have engaged in such behavior in the past. Studies by the U. S. Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and researchers in the area of threat assessment have consistently found that it is impossible to construct reliable profiles that can be of assistance in promoting school safety. Rather, best-evidence recommendations have consistently focused on the emerging technology of threat assessment, which can assist school personnel in determining the degree to which a given threat or incident constitutes a serious danger to the school"

Profiling has tended to be unprofessional (seems professional but is usually based on assumptions equally fallacious to those listed above) and discriminatory. Those engaging in it aren't always professional (or as professional as they think they are) and thus tend to behave in racist, xenophobic, religoiusly chauvinistic, or in other culturally biased ways. Talking about profiling has come to be seen as synonymous to racism in most quarters outside those wedded to these faulty ideas.

School to Prison Pipeline

Consequently the article notes:

"The increased reliance on more severe consequences in response to student disruption has also resulted in an increase of referrals to the juvenile justice system for infractions that were once handled in school."

This is "termed the school-to-prison pipeline.

"Research indicates that many schools appear to be using the juvenile justice system to a greater extent and, in a relatively large percentage of cases, the school-based infractions for which juvenile justice is called upon are not those that would generally be considered dangerous or threatening."

This has a number of issues;

"questions... about whether or not these referred youths’ constitutional rights have been respected fully."

The authors of course call for more research, but the impact of this is to damage the folks demonized by prison, and also lead to corruption of the system as some judges have been convicted of profiting from that "school to prison" pipeline through kickbacks or investments in privateering Prison Industries.

Question What has been the impact—both negative and positive—of zero tolerance policies on students, families and communities?

They believe that there is negative influence on the mental health of youth subject to Zero Tolerance:

"there are a number of reasons to be concerned that such policies may create, enhance, or accelerate negative mental health outcomes for youth."

Zero Tolerance is not cost effective:

"preliminary estimates suggest that the extensive use of suspension and expulsion and increased reliance on the juvenile justice system for school misbehavior may not be cost effective. To the extent that school infractions lead to increased contact with the juvenile justice system, the cost of treatment appears to escalate dramatically."

Question 6. What are the Alternatives to Zero Tolerance?

The report notes that there are a number of alternatives. And the authors recommend a "three level model of primary prevention"

1. Primary prevention strategies targeted at all students,
2. Secondary prevention strategies that are targeted at those students who may be at-risk for violence or disruption, and
3. Tertiary strategies that target those students who have already engaged in disruptive or violent behavior.

And three levels of intervention:

1. Bullying prevention (primary)
2. threat assessment (secondary)
3. restorative justice (tertiary)

I'll skip the Recommendations (they're at the end of this post). But essentially we need to fix the disciplinary system in our schools. I think this can be done in a way that makes discipline part of the education process. But most important that treats children with respect and understand that their personae and moral stance is not fixed and that they should not be judged in a prejudiced manner.

Study recommendation

"The accumulated evidence points to a clear need for a change in how zero tolerance policies are applied and toward the need for a set of alternative practices. It is time to make the shifts in policy, practice, and research to implement policies that can keep schools safe and preserve the opportunity to learn for all students."

Zero tolerance doesn't work.

Study suggestions

Read the report at: http://www.apa.org/pubs/info/reports/zero-tolerance-report.pdf

A. Reforming Zero Tolerance Policies
A.1 Practice
A.1.1 Apply zero tolerance policies with greater flexibility, taking context
and the expertise of teachers and school administrators into account.
A.1.2 Teachers and other professional staff who have regular contact with
students on a personal level should be the first line of communication with
parents and caregivers regarding disciplinary incidents.
A.1.3 Define all infractions, whether major or minor, carefully, and train all
staff in appropriate means of handling each infraction.
A.1.4 Evaluate all school discipline or school violence prevention strategies
to ensure that all disciplinary interventions, programs, or strategies are
truly impacting student behavior and school safety.
A.2. Policy
A. 2. 1 Reserve zero tolerance disciplinary removals for only the most
serious and severe of disruptive behaviors. Zero Tolerance Task Force Report 13
A.2.2 Replace one-size-fits all disciplinary strategies with graduated
systems of discipline, wherein consequences are geared to the seriousness
of the infraction.

A.2.3 Require school police officers who work in schools to have training in
adolescent development.
A.3 Research
A.3.1 Develop more systematic prospective studies on outcomes for
children who are suspended or expelled from school due to zero tolerance
policies.
A.3.2 Expand research on the connections between the education and
juvenile justice system and in particular empirically test the support for an
hypothesized school-to-prison pipeline.
A.3.3 Conduct research at the national level on disproportionate minority
exclusion, or the extent to which school districts' use of zero tolerance
disproportionately targets youth of color, particularly African American
males.
A.3.4 Conduct research on disproportionate exclusion by disability status,
specifically investigating the extent to which use of zero tolerance increases
the disproportionate discipline of students with disabilities, and explore the
extent to which differential rates of removal are due to intra-student factors
versus systems factors.
A.3.5. Conduct research to enhance understanding of the potential
differential effects of zero tolerance policies by student gender.
A.3.6 Conduct econometric studies or cost-benefit analyses designed to
explore the relative benefits of school removal for school climate as
compared to the cost to society of removal of disciplined students from
school.
B. Alternatives to Zero Tolerance
B.1 Practice
B.1.1 Implement preventive measures that can improve school climate and
improve the sense of school community and belongingness.
B.1.2 Seek to reconnect alienated youth and re-establish the school bond
for students at-risk of discipline problems or violence. Use threat
assessment procedures to identify the level of risk posed by student words.

B.1.3 Develop a planned continuum of effective alternatives for those
students whose behavior threatens the discipline or safety of the school. Zero Tolerance Task Force Report 14
B.1.4 Improve collaboration and communication between schools, parents,
law enforcement, juvenile justice and mental health professionals to
develop an array of alternatives for challenging youth.
B.2 Policy
B.2.1 Legislative initiatives should clarify that schools are encouraged to
provide an array of disciplinary alternatives prior to school suspension and
expulsion and, to the extent possible, increase resources to schools for
implementing a broader range of alternatives, especially prevention.
B.2.2 Increase training for teachers in classroom behavior management and
culturally-sensitive pedagogy.
B.2.3 Increase training for teachers, administrators and other school
personnel to address sensitivity related to issues of race.
B.2.4 Increase training on issues related to harassment and sexual
harassment for teachers, administrators and other school personnel.
B.3 Research
B.3.1 Conduct systematic efficacy research including quasi-experimental
and randomized designs to compare academic and behavioral outcomes of
programs with and without zero tolerance policies and practices.
B.3.2 Increase attention to research regarding the implementation of
alternatives to zero tolerance. What are the best and most logistically
feasible ways to implement alternative programs in schools?
B.3.3 Conduct outcome research focused on the effects and effectiveness
of various approaches to school discipline, not only for schools, but also for
families and the long-term functioning of children. 

A Democratic Process

The people who oversee elections are usually called "Election Judges" for a week. Elections have to be adjudicated by non-partisan, neutral, professional people who either have no stake in the outcome and can weigh facts or can set aside their feelings and behave judiciously. The problem with our current election systems is that the neutrality of this election process is often a sham. Not just between the parties in the main election but from beginning to end and top down. We use a privateering corporate approach to elections that subverts efforts to protect process and ensure that everyone in the country is represented. Our politicians are mostly in it for themselves, and that is okay. We who aren't running for office should provide the checks and balances on their behavior, because otherwise they'll fight about everything except when they pause to loot us.

I'm working on an alternative that will work. And I've examined the glossy offerings so far and see that none of them are adequate. I've got ideas for improving them, but if I have to I'll compete with them. One such offering is: http://interoccupy.net/. I'm looking for others, and allies. Potential allies would be Move On, Netroots, and other groups. I'm not interested in helping Republicans but we'd be better off if they did the same thing. We need communities with two way communication, regression in sub-chaptering, standardized charters and the ability to share information broadly and accurate.

Spencer versus Locke & Henry George

What we find are many folks in our history who paid lip service to John Locke's thinking but actually tried to subvert it. I wrote about Burke's subversion of Locke in "Burke Versus John Locke" a while ago. But I have Henry George to thank for attacking Spencer's attack on the notion of property as an equal right.

Attacking Locke

Herbert Spencer like many Cons before and after him, subverts the basic conception of human rights in property by first doing a linguistic shift that appears to affirm that right and then using sleight of hand to subvert it. In "A Perplexed Philosopher" by Henry George, in "Part I, Chapter IV: Mr. Spencer's Confusion as to Right" in Property ownership:

"in Section 5, he proposes to Proudhon; for if, as in this chapter he asserts [the strawman that] no one can equitably become the exclusive possessor of any natural substance or product until the joint rights of all the rest of mankind have been made over to him by some species of quit-claim" [Chapter 4]

Henry George then notes that Spencer uses this strawman to advance a reductio ad absurdum argument that because such clear title, or complete "quit claim" is an absurdity that can never be achieved so he finishes:

..."—has no more claim to his own limbs than he has to the limbs of another—and has as good a right to his neighbor's body as to his own!" [Ch 4 continued]

Spencer, Henry Notes is advancing a "joint property claim" in chapter 5. But his real purpose is to sabotage Locke's concept. Locke (and Henry George) advanced that people have an equal right to property but Spencer is taking aim at that because as he notes:

"That there is a difference may be seen at once. For joint rights may be and often are unequal rights." [Ch 4 continued]

George explains the distinction between Joint Rights and Equal Rights as follows:

"When men have equal rights to a thing, as for instance, to the rooms and appurtenances of a club of which they are members, each has a right to use all or any part of the thing that no other one of them is using. It is only where there is use or some indication of use by one of the others that even politeness dictates such a phrase as "Allow me!" or "If you please!"[Ch 4 continued]

Then in Chapter IX, section 1 George quotes Spencer directly contradicting Locke trying to nullify equal rights using his absolutist "joint right" argument:

"No amount of labor, bestowed by an individual upon a part of the earth's surface, can nullify the title of society to that part"..."whether by labor ... made his right to the thing ...greater than the preexisting rights of all other men" [Ch 4 continued]

Thus shifting the standard of right from an equal right to one requiring a burden of proof that few people can prove:

"unless he can prove that he has done this his title to possession cannot be admitted...but [only] conceded ground of convenience." [Ch 4 continued]

Henry George then cuts into this argument:

"Here the primary right—the right by which "each of them is free to use the earth for the satisfaction of his wants "—has been dropped out of sight, and the mere proviso has been swelled into the importance of the primary right, and has taken its place." [Ch 4 continued]

Henry George notes that Spencer was actually attacking John Locke's ideas:

"And, from this [] shifting of ground, he is led, not only into hypercritical questioning of Locke's derivation of the right of property, but into the assumption that a man can have no right to the wild berries he has gathered on an untrodden prairie, unless he can prove the consent of all other men to his taking them."

Reckless, Feckless but on purpose, I would say. But Henry George was politer and doesn't have my hindsight. And Henry George was making a larger point too. He restates the essential point of Locke's Two Treatises in [George's] own words:

"Locke was not in error. The right of property in things produced by labor—and this is the only true right of property—springs directly from the right of the individual to himself, or as Locke expresses it, from his "property in his own person." It is as clear and has as fully the sanction of equity in any savage state as in the most elaborate civilization. Labor can, of course, produce nothing without land; but the right to the use of land is a primary individual right, not springing from society, or depending on the consent of society, either expressed or implied, but inhering in the individual, and resulting from his presence in the world. Men must have rights before they can have equal rights. Each man has a right to use the world because he is here and wants to use the world. The equality of this right is merely a limitation arising from the presence of others with like rights. Society, in other words, does not grant, and cannot equitably withhold from any individual, the right to the use of land. That right exists before society and independently of society, belonging at birth to each individual, and ceasing only with his death." [Ch 4 continued]

Henry George also explains the role of Governments in all this:

"Society itself has no original right to the use of land. What right it has with regard to the use of land is simply that which is derived from and is necessary to the determination of the rights of the individuals who compose it. That is to say, the function of society with regard to the use of land only begins where individual rights clash, and is to secure equality between these clashing right of individuals." [Ch 4 continued]

He concludes:

"Thus, instead of there being no right of property until society has so far developed that all land has been properly appraised and rented for terms of years, an absolute right of property in the things produced by labor exists from the beginning—is coeval with the existence of man."

For more suggest you read his series. I just wanted to note that Right Wing folks only quote John Locke in order to subvert his writings. Even now Libertarians take the above quotes about individual rights to assert similar arguments to Herbert Spencer.

Subject continued:

The Target of progressive taxation and LVT is unearned land rents/income [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-target-of-progressive-taxation-and.html]

Further reading

http://www.grundskyld.dk/23-Perplex-Ch4.html

Common Property and the Commons [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/common-property-and-commons.html]

Related Articles Locke (and some Henry George References"

Commonwealth according to Locke [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/09/commonwealth-according-to-locke.html]

Locke on the importance of the Collective [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/12/locke-talked-of-importance-of-collective.html]

Progressive Taxation principles and Picketty [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2014/05/progressive-taxation-principles-and.html]

Postal Banking, Stamp Scripts and fixing our economic system [http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2015/02/postal-banking-stamp-scripts-and-fixing.html]

Importance of "Ordinary magistracy"

In Federalist 27 I find the term "Ordinary Magistry" employed at the end of his paper:

"The plan reported by the convention, by extending the authority of the federal head to the individual citizens of the several States, will enable the government to employ the ordinary magistracy of each, in the execution of its laws." [Federalist 27]

This goes back to the question raised in my earlier post of whether the Federalist system was ever envisioned to be two separate governments or not. Clearly Hamilton thought not. he saw a fundamental principle of Federalism as being collaboration and the use of "ordinary magistracy" ("ordinary courts" is the term I hear from English legal experts). I don't think that Hamilton at least envisioned two separate court systems but rather a unified court system. As realistic as he was I don't think he'd have been surprised by what has actually happened but I think that all the founders would be dismayed, because there are huge benefits to collaboration and a need for a unified government that outweigh any supposed benefits from competition and rivalry:

Collaborative Government

"It is easy to perceive that this will tend to destroy, in the common apprehension, all distinction between the sources from which they might proceed; and will give the federal government the same advantage for securing a due obedience to its authority which is enjoyed by the government of each State, in addition to the influence on public opinion which will result from the important consideration of its having power to call to its assistance and support the resources of the whole Union."[Federalist 27]

In the Federal vision that we see here, it seems Hamilton at least, hoped that Federal Judges would also be State Judges and that State Judges would be able to weigh in on Federal Law. In this vision, only the clearly Federal only courts such as the Supreme Court and Federal Appellate courts would have been in separate bodies and functionally the court system would have been an integrated whole. In principle the courts were to be collaborative.

Integrated Government

It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS; and will be rendered auxiliary to the enforcement of its laws."[Federalist 27]

Now we know from history that elements of his vision ended up being in contravention to the vision of the early Republicans (Democratic-Republicans but often just plain Republicans). But these arguments were about the scope of Federal Power not this concept.

That the courts have evolved the way they did, originally could be excused by the vast distances between localities and central locations, and conflicts between State Law and Federal Law that reflected different interpretations of what the "enumerated and legitimate" objects of each should be. I don't believe however, that Hamilton's vision was too idealistic or radical not to inform our own times. I think he saw "constitutional" as being about the organization needed for good government and never expected it would be so hard to amend the constitution to keep the government well constituted. With a well constituted government one can pretty much agree:

Any man who will pursue, by his own reflections, the consequences of this situation, will perceive that there is good ground to calculate upon a regular and peaceable execution of the laws of the Union, if its powers are administered with a common share of prudence. " [Federalist 27]

I believe that one of the constitutional issues of our own time. Not from the perspective of being "unconstitutional" in the sense of the parsed and political interpretation of our current SCOTUS, but poorly constituted in the sense of our myriads of courts and local governments each with overlapping, duplicated, conflictive, and sometimes arbitrary laws, sometimes perched to prey on travellers, and sometimes set to exploit the peccadilloes of their own ordinary citizens. I think we need to reconstitute our court system to reflect this original vision. And also to once again separate "Judge, jury and executioner" and restore the role of "ordinary courts", "ordinary process" and citizens in their appropriate Judicial roles. Our current system, where it is illegal in some states to marry, smoke pot, or vote, in some states and legal in others, is crazy as much due to drift from the vision described here as from any deliberate insanity. Judges are professional Jurors who know the law well enough that they should be able to act as jurors about it's constitutionality and appropriateness in concert with legislature, executive and ordinary people-jurors. That is where we should be setting up processes for better adjudicating issues.

In this post I'm wearing my student hat.

A Toxic House of Bigots (Poem)

Strange fruit from all this hate,

can't swim, or run out the gate...

The more we hate, the more we fail.

The more we fail, the harder to heal.

 

The harder we get the less we deal,

and the poorer we deal the more we fail.

So if we are to heal we must break the cycle of hate

& we must do it before its too late!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98CxkS0vzB8

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.