In the second of these discourses, I ventured that the national government has turned a deaf ear to the will of the majority and have no incentives to actually respond to the desires of the people who have submitted to their rule. Why should they? The people are appeased by shows of power and placated by superficial grandeur. We are, as a group, apathetic and distracted beyond caring. A disturbing numbness afflicts most; helplessness the remainder. These are just what those who spoke, vainly, against the Constitution foresaw in the late 18^th century during the debates on ratification of our untried form of mixed government. These ancient voices - these "men of little faith" - haunt us today with their admonitions and warnings. They are now but darkened lighthouses cautioning us of dangers too late seen. I freely admit that continuing an examination of their haunting arguments offers little remedy at this late date. Nevertheless, perhaps through their words we can see more clearly what might have been and what could have been avoided. And, what is more, for the sake of those who cling to the flickering hope that America may still awaken to the tragedy that is our inheritance, I will continue the exercise.

No greater mischief has befallen the nation as the result of a single phrase than Article I, Section 8, Clause 18 of the U.S. Constitution that finalized that ignominious section. In the phrase:

"To make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."

In that single phrase, which was railed against by the long-forgotten Anti-Federalists as too broad and rife with potential abuses to be allowed to stand, the federal government was formally sanctioned to lay a 200 year siege on the liberty of its citizenry. "Brutus" (the pen name, as was the practice of the time, of an unknown New Yorker, possibly Robert Yates) who wrote many of the most well-reasoned essays against the ratification of the product of the 1787 Constitutional Convention singled out this passage for this observation:

"This government is to possess absolute and uncontrollable power, legislative, executive and judicial, with respect to every object to which it extends...The government then, so far as it extends, is a complete one, and not a confederation. It is as much one complete government as that of New-York or Massachusetts, has as absolute and perfect powers to make and execute all laws, to appoint officers, institute courts, declare offences, and annex penalties, with respect to every object to which it extends, as any other in the world."

Brutus goes on to argue, more cogently, the following:

"It [Congress] has authority to make laws which will affect the lives, the liberty, and property of every man in the United States; nor can the constitution or laws of any state, in any way prevent or impede the full and complete execution of every power given. The legislative power is competent to lay taxes, duties, imposts, and excises; -- there is no limitation to this power, unless it be said that the clause which directs the use to which those taxes, and duties shall be applied, may be said to be a limitation: but this is no restriction of the power at all, for by this clause [Clause 18] they are to be applied to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but the legislature have authority to contract debts at their discretion; they are the sole judges of what is necessary to provide for the common defence, and they only are to determine what is for the general welfare; this power therefore is neither more nor less, than a power to lay and collect taxes, imposts, and excises, at their pleasure; not only [is] the power to lay taxes unlimited, as to the amount they may require, but it is perfect and absolute to raise them in any mode they please."

The question posed in this, the first of the essays from "Brutus," is - in modern parlance: "Who is to protect the henhouse if we grant all guard duties to the fox?" If we are to surrender to the new federal government vast powers to legislate laws and allow them to decide, themselves, what is "necessary and proper" for carrying out these laws, where is the seat of control? Clear thinking minds can, today, answer such a question and with great precision.

The Federalists, in support of the Constitution, would argue at the time that the President, the executive of the people, has the power to veto legislation which is not in the best interest of the people. But, one may then logically query: "If Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 allows the self-same legislature to override a veto from the President, whither lay the ultimate power?" This was a question that was insufficiently defended by those in favor of the ratification of the Constitution then and a question that looms large to this day.

And what value do we assign the people’s "negative check" on the legislature? Specifically, if elected representatives do not do the bidding of their constituency, the people can, then, simply be voted from office. While the Federalist would have us believe this is a sufficient restraint on the legislature, it falls short of that mark on many counts. Furthermore, the Constitution is silent on the right of the electorate to recall elected officials for failing to accede to the will of their electorate. To rely solely on "un-electing" disloyal representatives allows the people to protest only every 2 years (for Congressmen) or every 6 years (for Senators). This is no repair at all. For 24 months or 72 months is quite sufficient time for dire mischief to be inflicted on the citizenry. As Patrick Henry lamented:

"I shall be told in this place, that those who are to tax us are our representatives. To this I answer, that there is no real check to prevent their ruining us. There is no actual responsibility. The only semblance of a check is the negative power of not reelecting them. This, sir, is but a feeble barrier, when their personal interest, their ambition and their avarice, come to be put in contrast with the happiness of the people. All checks found on anything but self-love, will not avail."

Compounding our lack of effective control of our rulers is the startling realization that we have ceded this unharnessed and immense power to the very people the Founding Fathers sought to exclude from its vision of the American Republic: the privileged, aristocratic and elitist segment of our society. Today, we call them "professional politicians" nee lawyers. This class of aristocracy was best described in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams in the early 1800s. He delineated a clear distinction between the type of people who should lead and those who, sadly, have come to lead our national government.

"For I agree with you that there is a natural aristocracy among men. The grounds of this are virtue and talents. Formerly bodily powers gave place among the aristoi. But since the invention of gunpowder has armed the weak as well as the strong with missile death, bodily strength, like beauty, good humor, politeness and other accomplishments, has become but an auxiliary ground of distinction. There is also an artificial aristocracy founded on wealth and birth, without either virtue or talents; for with these it would belong to the first class. The natural aristocracy I consider as the most precious gift of nature for the instruction, the trusts, and government of society. And indeed it would have been inconsistent in creation to have formed man for the social state, and not to have provided virtue and wisdom enough to manage the concerns of the society. May we not even say that that form of government is the best which provides the most effectually for a pure selection of these natural aristoi into the offices of government? The artificial aristocracy is a mischievous ingredient in government, and provision should be made to prevent it's ascendancy." [Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, 1813; emphasis mine]

It is a self-evident truth that the halls of Congress are currently populated (or, more correctly, infested) by the "artificial aristocracy" (those who serve for the sake of self-aggrandizement and hunger for power and influence) and has few remnants of the "natural aristocracy" (those who are virtuous and serve for the benefit of the nation and her people). Armed with the unbridled powers of the Constitution (and abetted with judicial activism and sanction), these self-interested vagrants have fulfilled the prophecies of the Anti-Federalists. Specifically, as expressed, by Brutus:

"I would ask those, who reason thus, to define what ideas are included under the terms, to provide for the common defense and general welfare? Are these terms indefinite, and will they be understood in the same manner, and to apply to the same case by every one? No one will pretend they will. It will then be a matter of opinion, what tends to the general welfare; and the Congress will be the only judges in the matter."

When the passions of the elected are based, selfishly, on securing the goodwill and appeasement of those who most vocally present their grievances (and relying on the silent acquiescence of the majority), the phrase "general welfare" assumes a very specific purpose. It becomes a license to dispense the largesse to special interests based on arbitrary assessments solely within the purview of the Congress. With the inbred and unchallenged arrogance of the artificial aristocracy which depends upon the apathy and distraction of the majority, the siphoning continues at the discretion of those who control the purse.

In the sage words of John C. Calhoun: "To maintain the ascendancy of the Constitution over the lawmaking majority is the great and essential point on which the success of the [American] system must depend; unless that ascendancy can be preserved, the necessary consequence must be that the laws will supersede the Constitution; and, finally, the will of the Executive, by influence of its patronage, will supersede the laws.

[...to be continued]