Front Page
NMJ Search
Editorials
Commentary
Archive
NMJ Radio
Constitutional Literacy
Islamofascism
Progressivism
Books
NMJ Shop
Links, Etc...
Facebook
Twitter
Site Information
About Us
Contact Us
  US Senate
  US House
  Anti-Google






Archive Email Author

About David Corbin & Matthew Parks
Dr. David Corbin taught courses in political philosophy, American politics, and international relations at the University of New Hampshire and Boston University before coming to teach at The King's College. His areas of academic interest include classical political philosophy, politics and literature, and American political history. Prof. Corbin has participated in numerous academic and civic endeavors, including serving a term in the New Hampshire State Legislature (1998-2000), involvement in the Henry Salvatori Fellows program at the Heritage Foundation (1998), the study of liberty and literature at the Liberty Fund (1999), touring Switzerland with a delegation of 20 outstanding young American diplomats to further American-Swiss relations in the summer of 2000, as a candidate for the governorship of New Hampshire in 2002, his appointment as the 2007-2008 Julius Stratton Adams fellow by the Friends of Switzerland, Boston, and as a Lehrman Institute Fellow in 2010. He was commended for his outstanding teaching by former University of New Hampshire president Joan Leitzel in May of 2001. Prof. Corbin's analysis of political, cultural and social trends has appeared in the Investors Business Daily, The New York Times, The Washington Times, the Associated Press, First Things "First Thoughts", Radio Free Europe, the French News Agency, New Hampshire Public Broadcasting, New England Cable News, and WCVB's "Chronicle," along with various news organizations in the New England area.

Matthew Parks earned a Ph.D. in political science at Boston University after majoring in math and political science at Dickinson College. He has spent his career in education, serving for seven years as the headmaster and principal teacher of Exeter Classical Christian School before coming to King's. He has written and spoken on the Founders, Abraham Lincoln, and the generation of American statesmen in between, the principles of republican government, and the role of the natural law in civil legislation. Matt was born in London while his father was stationed in England with the US Navy, but lived in Pennsylvania for most of his youth. He has traveled by car across the US seven times, visiting every state and more than twenty different Major League ballparks. He has served as a deacon and ruling elder in the Presbyterian Church in America and lives in New York City with his wife and three young children. Together, they are co-authors of "Keeping Our Republic: Principles for a Political Reformation" (2011).
http://www.TheFederalist.com
Social Bookmarking
Print this page.
A Long Walk (Back) to Freedom
David Corbin & Matthew Parks
March 3, 2014
With each news cycle comes fresh examples of federal overreach in American politics. Consider last week's relatively mild sample:

▪ United States Attorney General Eric Holder advised his state counterparts not to defend laws they found discriminatory within their jurisdiction, suggesting that "engaging in that process and making that determination is something that's appropriate for an attorney general to do."

▪ The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) reversed course–for now–on its "Multi-Market Study of Critical Information Needs," a plan to investigate the editorial content and decision-making process of local television, internet, and newspaper companies.

▪ The United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in its latest regaming of Obamacare, announced that non-enrollees could still earn federal tax credits as long as they confirmed that their non-enrollment was the result of technical glitches in their state's online insurance exchanges.

Each of these examples represents something less than a revolution in our relations with the federal government. But from a wider perspective, we can see just how far removed we are from the Constitution's vision for American government. What is striking in these cases is perhaps not so much the power in view (although in some cases that is considerable), but the way they illustrate the national government's claim to jurisdiction over and pretense of competency in all areas of life.

We need the federal Attorney General to tell state AGs how to do their job. We need the fine folks at the FCC to micromanage media content. And people who can't make (federal or state) Obamacare websites work are definitely needed to tell us whether we have the right health insurance policy.

Alongside this is a creeping homogenization of American life that uses federal control over questions once left to the states or private parties to promote conformity to Progressive orthodoxy. Attorney General Holder wants to end the gay marriage debate; the FCC wants a media that serves the public according to its singular understanding of what that means; the HHS wants to standardize health insurance in defiance of the most natural differences (between young and old or men and women).

In a previous essay, we suggested (borrowing from the good work of others) some ways that we might begin to exercise our self-government muscles again–modest policy reforms that would open up room for private action.

Federalist 33 outlines Alexander Hamilton's understanding of the proper (republican) way to stop or resist new federal encroachments–before they begin to weaken us.

Responding to concerns that the Constitution's "necessary and proper" clause will be a vehicle for expansive federal powers, Hamilton writes:

But it may be again asked, Who is to judge of the necessity and propriety of the laws to be passed for executing the powers of the Union? I answer, first, that this question arises as well and as fully upon the simple grant of those powers as upon the declaratory clause; and I answer, in the second place, that the national government, like every other, must judge, in the first instance, of the proper exercise of its powers, and its constituents in the last. If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.

Hamilton's initial point is that every power granted to the national government is liable to abuse. Like Madison, Hamilton places little hope in the idea that "parchment barriers"–careful enumerations of (the limits of) government authority–will, by themselves, keep political leaders from expanding their powers beyond reasonable constitutional bounds.

What is needed, then, is not just a way to keep the "elastic clause" from stretching too far, but a comprehensive approach to resisting federal usurpations of individual and state authority.

The first part of Hamilton's approach seems rather unpromising: expecting the national government to police itself. But a well-functioning system of checks and balances–including judicial review and the presidential veto–makes it possible, at least in some cases, for one constitution-honoring branch of government to prevent overreach by the other two. As Hamilton argues later in the essay, laws that that go beyond the Constitution are "merely acts of usurpation, and will deserve to be treated as such."

Obviously, though, this hasn't happened often enough. Partisan and ideological affinity and a common interest in expanding federal power, among other causes, have all but retired these admittedly blunt constitutional weapons as serious checks on federal power–as demonstrated, for example, by Justice Roberts's Obamacare opinion and George W. Bush's decision to sign what he believed was an unconstitutional campaign finance reform bill.

That, according to Federalist 33, leaves the responsibility in the hands of the people–who, after all, made the government–to "redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify."

But how do we find the best method of redressing the injury? Hamilton is wise enough to know that one approach isn't suitable for all cases, but he does suggest two principles to guide us.

The first is that the type of response should be related to the offense in view. The one (perhaps temporary) victory on the list of last week's federal offenses was won when the media–Fox News and conservatives in the new media especially–pushed back hard against the FCC's proposal, after one of the Commission's own members, Ajit Pai, brought attention to the plan in a Wall Street Journal editorial. What might have been the quiet implementation of an innocuously-titled program turned into a debate over freedom of the press even the old guard of the mainstream media couldn't entirely ignore.

But what of bigger constitutional game? If Hamilton's remedy that the people "take measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution" seems far-fetched, consider that he was writing at the end of a remarkable twenty-five year period (1763-1788) when the "new media" of his day–the pamphlet and the broadsheet–combined with "old media" oratory had made it possible for leaders to encourage significant political reforms and a revolution to boot. That isn't to suggest that we ought to ignore present-day difficulties (civic diseducation, shorter attention spans, changing mores, and the like) and place a blind trust in the employment of (new and old) communications technologies. But there's much work to be done that can be done if we forsake the rant for the argument and properly account for the challenges and limitations of modern audiences.

Second, the authors and orators of the founding generation became, in many cases, the statesmen of the founding generation–they took their arguments from the churchyard and tavern into public assemblies and courtrooms. They did not think that ideas were the enemies of political consequences, nor vice versa: they realized that lasting success in the public square required thoughtful consideration, efficient assembly, and extensive public service at the local, state, and national level. They wrestled carefully with what "prudence justifies," lest they delay justice with precipitate action or miss it altogether, doing evil that good may come.

The effective response to the FCC's proposed study (and similar recent efforts to reign in the NSA) suggests that some short-term victories are possible. But a more comprehensive and lasting victory over improper and unnecessary federal encroachment will require an effort from the American people just as intense and just as long as the public-spirited labors of American patriots between 1763-1788. The Tea Party celebrated its fifth anniversary on Thursday; the work has just begun.

Victory will require ten thousand leaders on the political front lines, supported by another million citizens making a compelling case to one hundred million more about what is necessary and proper. Determining how far we are from those marks and how to make up the difference ought to be front and center as we consider how and when to convene.








The BasicsProject.org informational and educational pamphlet series is now available for Kindle and iPad. Click here to find out more...

The New Media Journal and BasicsProject.org are not funded by outside sources. We exist exclusively on donations from our readers and contributors.
Please make a sustaining donation today.







Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of NewMediaJournal.us, its editorial staff, board or organization.  Reprint inquiries should be directed to the author of the article. Contact the editor for a link request to NewMediaJournal.us.  NewMediaJournal.us is not affiliated with any mainstream media organizations.  NewMediaJournal.us is not supported by any political organization.  Responsibility for the accuracy of cited content is expressly that of the contributing author. All original content offered by NewMediaJournal.us is copyrighted. NewMediaJournal.us supports BasicsProject.org and its goal: the liberation of the American voter from partisan politics and special interests in government through the primary-source, fact-based education of the American people.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance a more in-depth understanding of critical issues facing the world. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 USC Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.


The Media Journal.us © 1998-2014    Content Copyright © Individual authors
Powered by ExpressionEngine 1.70 and M3Server