Happy Birthday, America!

I think we should celebrate the 225th birthday of the
Constitution with this ridiculously delicious flag
dessert that my lovely and talented wife makes!

We have all been used to celebrating July 4th as "America's Birthday", and with good reason.  That date marks the occasion of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, formally severing our political and colonial ties with Great Britain.  Of course, a great war followed before it was truly a done deal, but were the "united States of America" (as it was written in the Declaration, with a small "u", indicating that the states were merely a united group) actually "the United States of America" (as it was written in the Constitution, with a capital "U", making "United" a part of the name of the new nation) at that time?

Today marks what I might consider the "real" birthday of the United States of America.  On September 17, 1787 - 225 years ago - the Constitutional Congress adopted the Constitution, signed it and sent it to the states for ratification.  After ratification, the Constitution was formally put into effect on March 4, 1789 (so I guess we could make the argument that March 4 is the "real birthday", as well!).

The Constitution was, in fact, more or less the third attempt at making the fledgling country-to-be a unified nation.  In 1774, the Continental Congress adopted the Articles of Association, but it was quickly apparent that it was inadequate, so in 1776, the Congress began work on the Articles of Confederation, which was completed the next year and ratified in 1781.  After the Revolutionary War, the new nation, not really even a nation yet, but a confederacy of independent states, was seen by many as too weak to hold together, and a  stronger national government was necessary.  Opinions, of course, varied, and vigorously.  But without going over the entire history of the writing and ratification of the Constitution, let me make two observations that I think demonstrate the real genius of this document (and those who wrote it): longevity and durability.

In terms of longevity, the U.S. Constitution has few peers.  It is, in fact, the oldest national constitution still in effect.  According to a University of Chicago Law School study, the average constitution worldwide lasts only about seventeen years before being replaced.  In other words, most constitutions don't even reach voting age!  Even in our own country, we have had nearly 150 state constitutions, an average of about three per state since the founding.

By durability, I mean the Constitution has changed very little in its history.  Only twenty-seven times has it been amended, ten of which came all at once in 1791, so in the ensuing 221 years, only seventeen amendments have been ratified (and two of which offset each other), an average of once every thirteen years.  By comparison, the constitutions of the states have been amended a total of nearly 12,000 times, or an average of 240 per state!  What that seems to signify is that the U.S. Constitution was written specifically enough to get the country started, but generally enough to avoid amendments for every little issue.  True genius.

Interestingly, though, our Constitution deviates significantly from the statistical norms the Chicago study found.  They identified two traits that contribute to the longevity of most constitutions: adaptability and specificity.  In their words:

Adaptability, it appears, is crucial for constitutional survival. In the case of amendment ease, for example, an easily amended constitution (one whose probability of amendment is one standard deviation above the mean) has a 70 percent chance of lasting until age 50 versus 13 percent for those whose amendment probability is estimated at one standard deviation below the mean. Consistent with our expectations we find that constitutions that cover more topics are more durable than shorter ones, suggesting that specificity matters, although length of constitution alone does not seem to increase endurance.  ("The Lifespan of Written Constitutions", Authors:  Thomas Ginsburg, Zachary Elkins, and James Melton, 2009)

As you all know, our Constitution is by no means easy to amend (and that will be a topic for a future blog), yet it endures.  And ours is not very specific on very many topics, as it only runs about 4,500 words over merely seven articles, while the shortest U.S. state constitution goes nearly twice that number of words- most are much longer.

So, how to explain the longevity and durability of our Constitution, which seems to buck the worldwide trend, as the oldest, yet shortest constitution of any sovereign nation still in effect?  I wish there was an easy answer.  Can it be that our Founders were just that much smarter than everyone else?  They were true geniuses and visionaries, to be sure, but people these days have the benefit of hundreds of years of experience and scholarship to draw on, yet are unable to deliver such an enduring document.  Or perhaps does it matter not so much what is in the document specifically, but rather the intent behind the words?  I would argue that, despite the Chicago study's findings, a very detailed, specific and easily changeable document is subject to too much tampering and tinkering to endure for long, and perhaps it is the very simplicity of ours that makes it so strong.  Or is it a case of "national character" and the acceptance of the rule of law, rather than the rule of whim, that helps our republic endure?  In any case, the variables are too may to discuss in a little blog post, but discuss we shall.  Discuss, my friends - and Happy Birthday, America!

Hamilton, Roosevelt and the 22nd Amendment

In Federalist Number 72, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong case against term limits for the president.  These days, of course, we are used to the idea of a president serving only two terms, as limited by the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution.  Why, then, did Hamilton argue in favor of essentially unlimited terms for the chief executive, and why did no president actually serve more than two, other then FDR?

Hamilton made essentially five arguments against term limits:

1. Less inducement to good behavior.  If one knows one's time is limited in the job, where's the incentive to behave properly, not having to worry about getting re-elected?

2. A greater inducement to corruption.  Again, knowing that one is going to lose one's job anyway, why not take advantage of any "special favors" during the limited time in office?

3. Term limits would deprive the public of the very men who have the experience to lead best.  Why replace the seasoned veteran with a relative newcomer, simply as a matter of procedure?

4. Continuity in crisis.  Hamilton argued that replacing the president in times of crisis - especially in war - would be potentially disastrous.  Crisis is no time for on-the-job training.

5. Term limits would serve as a destabilizing factor, artificially compelling a change in administration that the people may not necessarily want.

Near the end of the paper, Hamilton adds, in response to counter-arguments:  " ...if he [the president] had been fortunate or adroit enough to conciliate the good-will of the people, he might induce them to consider as a very odious and unjustifiable restraint upon themselves, a provision which was calculated to debar them of the right of giving a fresh proof of their attachment to a favorite. There may be conceived circumstances in which this disgust of the people, seconding the thwarted ambition of such a favorite, might occasion greater danger to liberty, than could ever reasonably be dreaded from the possibility of a perpetuation in office, by the voluntary suffrages of the community, exercising a constitutional privilege."

In other words, could the strong attachment of the people (or even a small number of the people) lead to civil unrest if their favorite was not re-elected simply because of term limits? 

So, how has this worked in practice?  Washington set an unofficial precedent by refusing a third term, which he would no doubt have won, though it was likely due to his age that he refused, rather than a more altruistic motive.  In any case, Jefferson, Madison and Monroe all adhered to the two-term precedent, as well.  A few presidents attempted to serve a third term - Grant, Cleveland, Theodore Roosevelt and Wilson - but all failed to do so.  The only president to successfully be elected to more than two terms (ultimately winning four times) was Franklin Roosevelt.  

Roughly two years after FDR's death, the Congress proposed the 22nd Amendment, limiting the president to two full terms, or ten years in office, if he should serve less than two years of his predecessor's term.  The only presidents who could have served more than two full terms since the amendment was ratified in 1951 were Truman (who was president at the time and was specifically exempted from its provisions, yet chose to adhere to the two-term precedent, anyway) and  Lyndon Johnson, who served the last 14 months of JFK's term, but refused re-nomination in 1968.  Ford, who took over from Nixon, served more than two years of Nixon's term, and was therefore ineligible to be elected more than once (a moot point, as he lost in 1976).

So, was Hamilton's warning about artificial term limits warranted?  After all, no president for 150 years successfully ran more than twice.  Those who tried all failed.  On the other hand, was Hamilton right about not "changing horses in mid-stream", as FDR was repeatedly elected during the Great Depression and World War II?  If Hamilton was right and it was that important to keep a sitting, experienced president through a great crisis (or two, in FDR's case), why was the country so eager to limit the presidential service so soon after FDR's death?

There have been several attempts in Congress to repeal the 22nd Amendment, but none gained any traction. Why do you suppose this is?  Are we, as Americans, perhaps still a little leery about long-serving chief executives, perhaps reminiscent of English kings?  Are we "wired for change" and don't like to see ourselves as a country (as represented by the president) as stuck in the mud, so to speak?  But if that's true, why do we allow members of Congress to serve in perpetuity?  Why not terms limits for them, if it's good enough for the president?  Is there that much of a difference in the way we see the president and the way we see members of Congress?  After all, no president but one ever successfully ran for more than two terms, yet members of Congress regularly serve for decades.  

Discuss, as you make ready to vote this November...

Hamilton Got It Wrong...Sort Of

In Federalist Number 68, Alexander Hamilton makes the case for the mode of election of the president - the Electoral College, as we know it.  Without going into great detail (you can read it for yourself here: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm - it's a pretty short read), it makes the case for the College as a non-partisan means of election.

Electors were to be chosen in each state, and no provision was made or encouraged that any elector should be in favor of one candidate over another ahead of time.  The assumption was that a body of wise men (of course, all men at the time) would debate and make a wise, informed choice for the chief executive.  Electors were to be independent, not subject to or part of any elected legislative body, thus preserving the independence of the president, once elected.  It was a very high-minded and idealistic idea for the election of  the president, and one that had many merits.  One merit was that the electors would also be independent of the national mood, since communication between the states was fairly slow.  The idea was that each state would make its own judgment without competing (or corrupting) influences from other states.

Of course, two centuries hence, communication is nearly instantaneous, electors are by all means partisan and the national mood is felt across all state lines.  These are things Hamilton, Madison and Jay couldn't have imagined when the Constitution was being written and "marketed" by the Federalist Papers, but happily, many, if not most, modern inventions and conditions can still be covered by the Constitution.  Freedom of the press certainly covers more than just printing presses, for example.  And whether the Electoral College is still the best method for electing the president, versus a direct, popular election, well, that's a fair debate.

So, why did I title this entry "Hamilton Got It Wrong"?  It was not about the Electoral College or the method for selecting the president.  It was later in Federalist 68, when he wrote:

"The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."

Read that again.  Hamilton was convinced that this electoral system would prevent people who are simply popular and masters of intrigue to ever elevate themselves to the presidency.  The wise, independent electors would never allow that to happen.  Our presidents would be nearly guaranteed to be "...characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue."  I admire the writers of our amazing Constitution for their wisdom and foresight.  But sadly, they seemed to have misjudged certain parts of human nature, especially the popularity of, well, popularity.

Discussion questions:

1. Was the Electoral College a good idea in the first place, given Hamilton's arguments? (Read the whole Federalist 68 prior to answering.)

2. Was Hamilton right that there is a "moral certainty" that "... that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications."?

3. If the office of the president is not held by  "...characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue", whose fault is it - the the Electoral College or the electorate in general?

Discuss amongst yourselves...

Meet Alexander Hamilton

Alexander Hamilton

If there was ever an "American Dream" success story among our country's founders, it had to have been Alexander Hamilton (though the dream died far too young).  Brilliant, hard-working almost beyond belief, obnoxious to many, yet respected by nearly all, Hamilton has made his influence over the United States felt strongly even until today.  His list of accomplishments is far too lengthy for a blog entry, but in (very) brief:

Early Life

Born out of wedlock in near poverty in the West Indies and effectively orphaned at age 11, Hamilton was an avid reader and by age 15 had impressed people enough to sponsor his voyage to the mainland colonies.  Denied entrance into Princeton, he eventually  gained admission to King's College (now Columbia).  He began his political writing career there, issuing a series of rebuttals to a Loyalist known as "The Farmer".

Hamilton joined the Continental Army in 1775 and was most noted for being aide-de-camp to general Washington.  As valuable as that service was, and gaining the perpetual respect of Washington, he craved combat glory and succeeded in being assigned to command light infantry battalions which were instrumental in the Battle of Yorktown and the British surrender there. (Aside: my family and I visited there last Spring.  I strongly recommend it!)

Post War

Following the war, Hamilton was appointed to the Congress of the Confederation, where he quickly identified major flaws in the Articles of Confederation, especially in terms of funding for the fledgling government.  Following his resignation from the congress, Hamilton stayed very busy.  He self-studied his way into the Bar of New York and practiced law, helped rebuild King's College as Columbia University and founded the Bank of New York, still the country's oldest bank.

Federalist


His most influential work was yet to come, though.  He pushed for a new constitutional convention, which convened in 1787.  His influence on the convention was limited, but his lasting contribution was as principal author (along with James Madison and John Jay) of The Federalist Papers - basically a "sales job" on the new Constitution, answering critics and explaining why this new document was far superior to the status quo.

Treasury Secretary and Beyond

As the new nation came into being, President Washington appointed Hamilton as the first Secretary of the Treasury (and is, along with Benjamin Franklin, one of only two non-presidents whose faces grace U.S. paper money).  Hamilton put the country on a path to financial stability, consolidated and paid off war debts, and helped found the Revenue Cutter Service, the forerunner of the Coast Guard.

Death

Hamilton served in and out of government for many years and was influential in the 1800 election of Thomas Jefferson as president, when 35 House of Representatives votes, trying to break the electoral tie between Jefferson and Aaron Burr, failed.  Hamilton threw his support to Jefferson, who finally won on the 36th ballot.  In 1804, Hamilton again helped defeat Burr, this time for Governor of New York, as Burr lost to Morgan Lewis.  Hamilton's critiques of Burr's character were too much for Burr, who challenged Hamilton to a duel. The duel resulted in Hamilton's death.

Why Hamilton Matters Today


Some of Hamilton's writings and ideas are still quite timely and thought-provoking today.  Of course, all his writing in The Federalist Papers is instructive and illuminating, giving us a look at the mindset of those who wrote the fantastic document known as our Constitution.  Most notably, given today's debates over taxes and tax policies, this, from the Federalist Number 21:

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, “in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four.” If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.


Hamilton seems to make a strong case for the proposal known these days as "The Fair Tax", a tax on consumption, rather than income, not only as a fair way of taxing, but as a natural limit on the size, scope and influence of the federal government.  Maybe he was really on to something...


Hip-Hop Hamilton


I was introduced to this video some time ago and it's an amazing musical biography of Alexander Hamilton, as performed by Lin-Manuel Miranda at the White House Poetry Jam (who knew there was such a thing?).  Click on the video link and snap along!

We the People?

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."


No doubt, you all recognize the preamble to the U.S. Constitution.  It sets out what the Framers intended to accomplish by establishing this constitution for the fledgling United States.  The first three words, however, can be a little troubling, at least in trying to figure out what they really mean.


To borrow from the National Constitution Center's program, "Freedom Rising", I ask, "Who are we, and what makes us 'a people'?"  Are we "a people" because we're all the same?  Or at least from the same background or heritage or religion?  Well, we all know the answer to that.  We know that "We the People" initially, at least, didn't include all the people, but it was a start and it was something nobody on Earth had really tried before.  No hereditary nobility; no class distinctions based on history, but only on merit; no royalty or ruling class, but only representatives of the people to govern in a limited, constrained way, based on the will of the people and the rule of law, not by the whims of a monarch.  


Years ago, during my military career, there was (and indeed there still is) a big push for diversity in recruiting.  The catchphrase that was used in the campaign was "Our Diversity is Our Strength", or something to that effect (it's been a while).  At the time, I argued against using wording like that.  I maintained that it sounded too much like a quota system and that it was illogical to conclude that simply because we are "diverse", therefore, we are strong.  There is nothing magical about diversity, in and of itself, that makes us better or worse.  The difference is in how we use and cope with that diversity.  My thought is that we should recruit the best available people, period.  And since not all great ideas come from, and not all great workers are, middle-aged males of European descent (like me), diversity would be a happy byproduct of recruiting the best and brightest.


So, how do we, as Americans, diverse lot that we are, become "a people"?  Like members of the military, we come together for a common purpose and hold similar values.  We follow the rule of law, as spelled out in the Constitution.  We, simply put, all become Americans.  We put aside our differences, but try to learn from them.  We take the best ideas from all over and make them American.  America "recruits" people from all over the world, but it's a passive recruitment.  We offer a way of life, an ideal, a system of self-governance that is all too rare in the world, and our "recruits" are self-selecting.  We don't send missionaries or ambassadors around the globe, trying to collect converts.  They choose to come here.  The diversity of our country is not by design or by program, but by acts of free will.


Yes, we are diverse, and yes, we are strong.  But we are not strong, and we are not "a people", simply because of our diversity.  We are a strong people because we have learned to, in effect, overcome our diversity and work together toward a common goal and a common good.  Our common bond is our country and our Constitution, not our color or our creed.  That's our strength.  No quotas required.

It's All About Context

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government." - James Madison

Apollo 15 Commander Dave Scott learning the
science and context of geology.

In the HBO series "From the Earth to the Moon", Caltech Geologist Leon Silver is training Apollo 15 astronauts Dave Scott and Jim Irwin how to observe and interpret geological information that they would encounter on the lunar surface.  He uses the example of "the story of the dead cat".  He tells the astronauts that there is a dead cat on the road.  All we know for sure is that it's a cat and it's dead.  So what happened to it?  The astronauts hypothesize and, based on evidence that is slowly revealed, put together the history of the cat and its demise.  When Dr. Silver asks what it the story ultimately all about, future Apollo 17 astronaut (and fellow geologist) Jack Schmitt says simply, "Context." 


Like the dead cat, we can look at the Constitution and say for sure that it's a piece of paper, it was written in the late 18th century and was signed by a bunch of old, dead (to us) white guys.  It's easy to read and know what's in the Constitution (I know everyone who is reading this has done so, right?).  It's even easier to to think you know.  How often have you heard someone say, "Well, it's my Constitutional right to..."?  And did you think, "Where is that in the Constitution?"  Often, of course, it isn't.


But let's assume you and your discussion partner have both actually read the Constitution.  And you both know what it says, to the letter.  Does that make agreement of its meaning inevitable?  Think of the Bible.  Anyone can read the Bible (in its various forms and editions, of course, but let's say for the sake of argument there is but one Bible).  Yet, does everyone who reads the Bible agree on what it means, even if they agree on what it says?  Well, tens of thousands of Christian denominations say the answer is clearly "no".  So why should the Constitution be any different?  And what is it that helps us understand the meaning after we learn the words?  Context.


What do I mean by context, and how does one get some?  Context means understanding the people and society and norms of the time and place in which the particular thing was written.  Our modern-day sensibilities and experiences are much different than a first-century Jew or 18th-century American colonist.  Biblical scholars spend a lot of time understanding what was was going on and how people lived when a particular piece of Scripture was written, or else a lot of what is in the Bible makes little sense to us.  For most of us, that kind of context is difficult to obtain on our own, not being real good in Latin, Greek, Hebrew and/or Aramaic.  Fortunately, it's easier to obtain as regards the Constitution.  For starters, reading "The Federalist Papers", by Madison, Hamilton and Jay, give us great insight into what exactly the Framers were thinking and how they were explaining it to the people.


In terms of gaining context for myself, I'm nearly done reading The Federalists  and just finished "The Fathers of the Constitution" by Max Farrand (available for a low, low price on Kindle). And next on my list is Richard Brookhiser's new biography of James Madison.  Book review to follow...  I also encourage anyone traveling anywhere near Philadelphia to take a pilgrimage to the National Constitution Center, one of my very favorite places in the world.  That helps provide the critical context for understanding our precious Constitution.


So, when you talk about what the Constitution means, versus simply what it says, be sure to include context in your argument.  It makes all the difference.

Meet Roger Sherman

Roger Sherman statue in Signers Hall,
National Constitution Center, Philadelphia

In anticipation of Independence Day, I am going to take it on faith that most people have at least a passing familiarity with Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and a few others as being among those we call "The Founders".  But do you know who was there at every written step along the way?  Mr. Roger Sherman of Connecticut is the most prolific "signer" of them all.  He is the only man to have affixed his signature to all four of what are considered our founding documents: The Articles of Association (1774), The Declaration of Independence (1776), The Articles of Confederation (1777) and The Constitution (1787).

Roger Sherman was a self-educated shopkeeper and shoe-maker who studied extensively on his own eventually was appointed or elected at various times as clerk, mayor, surveyor, judge, U.S. Congressman and professor of religion.

Despite his lack of formal learning, Sherman won the respect of those more well-known and well-educated men for his excellent judgment and temperament, perhaps best summed up by Jefferson himself: "That is Mr. Sherman, of Connecticut, a man who never said a foolish thing in his life."


In a more fun aside, the musical "1776" (music and lyrics by Sherman Edwards - ha-ha..."Sherman" - nice coincidence!) features a song called "But, Mr. Adams" in which it is fun to see how many words Sherman (Edwards) came up with during (Roger) Sherman's part of the song to rhyme with "Connecticut".  Check it out!