Originalism is a topic that requires its own fully-developed post, and one which I think I’ll address in the coming days, but I saw this quote this morning which I wanted to share. There’s an important distinction to be made between “original intent” and “original meaning” but suffice it to say for now that one is more geared towards understanding history and government, and one is more geared to understanding the law. Read more »
The Consent of the Governed
In Federalist 22, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
The fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.
Now this is the entire basis of government: that any government derives its just powers – its legitimacy – from the consent of the governed. That bit of language comes from Jefferson, via our Declaration of Independence. The question we must ask ourselves is: what constitutes consent?
Surely it must be more than 21%, right? Because only 21% of Americans think the U.S. government has the consent of the governed. We ought to reflect on exactly what Jefferson wrote in the Declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If we are not yet arrived at the point of altering or abolishing, certainly 21% approval must cause even the most short-sighted, and every government employee for that matter, to shudder.
On Balance and Bailouts
Forget for a moment such antiquated criteria like reason, logic, and common sense. Forget also personal experience and general economic policy. All of these frameworks suggest – and often loudly proclaim – that any bailout is indeed throwing good money after bad. It’s bad business supporting bad business.
If all of that weren’t enough, a foundational approach based upon the Constitution renders the bailouts of private corporations by the government absurd, destructive and incompatible with original intent.
 As Jefferson noted in his autobiography:
“It is not by the consolidation or concentration of powers, but by their distribution that good government is effected. Were not this great country already divided into States, that division must be made that each might do for itself what concerns itself directly and what it can so much better do than a distant authority. Every state again is divided into counties, each to take care of what lies within its local bounds; each county again into townships or wards, to manage minuter details; and every ward into farms, to be governed each by its individual proprietor… It is by this partition of cares descending in gradation from general to particular that the mass of human affairs may be best managed for the good and prosperity of all.”
And again we return to this persistent matter of balance; of the division of powers. How then should domestic matters such as bailouts be addressed? In short, and borrowing tongue-in-cheek from that great moral question captured on wristbands across America, what would Jefferson do?
The bailout of a private corporation would be vehemently opposed, foremost; risk and reward, after all, go together for a reason. Yet, if popular sentiment suggested that such a remarkable intervention was required, Jefferson – and any principled party – would suggest that such relief must come from the community in which this entity operates. If it is the loss of jobs that evokes calls for “saving” a company, then naturally one would expect that the affected community would be the one to ante up.
What makes this conclusion all the more glaring in its departure from how these problems are being addressed is this: the affected communities and individuals have the power to save the automakers, for example. It’s a rather simple solution. Simply disband the union, for starters, which has extorted an hourly wage of close to $70.00 per hour, and accept the market pay rate (which is by competitive measures approximately $47.00 per hour). This would begin the process of conserving cash that is essential to the survival of an organization in the midst of a turnaround.
Yet, we’re told by Congress (and, regrettably, the Executive) that a bailout is necessary, and they’re the only ones who can do it. And through an inappropriately aggressive interpretation of “the general welfare” we’re staring down the prospect of American citizens rewarding poor executives, bad decisions, and union greed with good money. I might add: largely against our will.
Have the American people been wholly conned into believing that central planning might actually work? How far has this infection spread?
Founding Wisdom: Jefferson
Thomas Jefferson
“I believe the States can best govern our home concerns, and the General Government our foreign ones. I wish, therefore, to see maintained that wholesome distribution of powers established by the constitution for the limitation of both; and never to see all offices transferred to Washington, where, further withdrawn from the eyes of the people, they may more secretly be bought and sold as at the market.”
It is difficult to both dispute the vision of Jefferson and argue that what we have today with respect to the administration of the people’s business is either proper or effective. Indeed, as Jefferson foresaw, the poorest administration of government is the one whereby the domestic matters which belong to the people are spirited away to a distant sphere of responsibility. This breeds distrust, apathy and contempt among the people for their own government.
As the Founders themselves told us time and again, it is this concept of the division of powers among the spheres – balanced government – which accounts for much of the genius of our system. Certainly, the separation of power among the branches of government is important, yet this mechanism wasn’t entirely new among governments in the 18th century. And of course the specific mechanisms created (especially balancing the representation scheme between the House and the Senate) also display the mark of genius, or at least thoughtful study and consideration.
Despite the often bitter partisanship between Jefferson and Hamilton and the then-Republicans and the Federalists in general, we can see from this example that there were concepts that were universally accepted and weren’t subject to partisan disagreement. The concept of Balanced Government is just such an idea.