A Modest Proposal, Part IV: Amending the Constitution to Mirror the Intent of the Articles of the Confederation

Thomas Jefferson is the man, the myth, the slave owner. “What difference, at this point, what difference does it make” that he was a slave owner in the 18^th century, Judgy Judy?  He was a wise man, and we should seek his counsel during these troubled times.

As discussed in previous posts, the “Anti-Federalists” predicted America’s decline: A Modest Proposal When the War Drums Start Banging, A Modest Proposal, Part II: Articles of the Confederation, and A Modest Proposal, Part III: What Were the Deficiencies of America’s First Constitution, the Articles of the Confederation?

One of our problems is that the American republic is simply too big and too diverse. “Anti-Federalist” Robert Yates predicted the division when he wrote in Brutus I:

“If respect is to be paid to the opinion of the greatest and wisest men who have ever thought or wrote on the science of government, we shall be constrained to conclude, that a free republic cannot succeed over a country of such immense extent, containing such a number of inhabitants, and these increasing in such rapid progression as that of the whole United States. Among the many illustrious authorities which might be produced to this point, I shall content myself with quoting only two.

The one is the Baron de Montesquieu, Spirit of the Laws, Chap. xvi. Vol. I [Book VIII]. “It is natural to a republic to have only a small territory, otherwise it cannot long subsist. In a large republic there are men of large fortunes, and consequently of less moderation; there are trusts too great to be placed in any single subject; he has interest of his own; he soon begins to think that he may be happy, great and glorious, by oppressing his fellow citizens; and that he may raise himself to grandeur on the ruins of his country. In a large republic, the public good is sacrificed to a thousand views; it is subordinate to exceptions and depends on accidents. In a small one, the interest of the public is easier perceived, better understood, and more within the reach of every citizen; abuses are of less extent, and of course are less protected.” Of the same opinion is the Marquis Beccarari.”

This makes so much sense. Abortion is still a national discussion. Why? We will never unite or agree on this issue, so, let’s just stop. Let it STAY with the states and stop arguing about it (the 14^th Amendment protects the unborn v. the 14^th Amendment protects the right to kill the unborn [living] blob.) Argue within the state, but not nationally. And how many fools will be voting for the vapid Harris on this very issue?

America should be 50 smaller republics and let each state figure out how they want to manage their state on the domestic issues, and without federal funds.

America is in full decline. How many stories about federal corruption must we endure? Thank God we have some journalists who are brave and honest to pursue the story, tearing through the thick wall of the censorship industrial complex, only to then endure ad hominem attacks, and then be beaten with a stick. (Thank you, btw.) But, how many journalists are cowards, bought and paid to tell flat out lies? Are they afraid?   

Some say it is because we did not uphold the Constitution that we are in this mess. Some say the Constitution is beyond repair, since anything connected to democracy becomes corrupt. Some say it was doomed from the start since we did not heed the multiple warnings of the multiple opinions voiced in the “Anti-Federalist” Papers. So, what do we agree about? Maybe that America is in decline and needs fixing. What’s the fix? Maybe we should start with the question, what do we need a federal government for, anyway? Thomas Jefferson said for everything connected to foreign nations. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

I’d rather start with revising the Articles of the Confederation (AOC), but that does not exist anymore so we would have to amend the U.S. Constitution.  Thomas Jefferson’s idea sounds reasonable, “My general plan would be to make the states one as to every thing connected with foreign nations, and several as to every thing purely domestic.”  

So, using that premise, the federal government would be reduced considerably. Many people who work in and with federal government (i.e. contracts, etc.) as well as in federal and state employment will need some time to adjust and get a new job.

If we allow the free market to thrive, history proves that innovation will create new jobs. But, once government gets involved, especially in the “nanny” states, we halt “progress.”  

What if amending the Constitution is like throwing the baby Jesus out with the bathwater (bathwater = dogma)? What other options do we have? Even fiscally conservative leadership has not ended dependency on the government, at the individual level or state level.

The Constitution, for all its flaws generated from Alexander Hamilton, did create the American dream for We the People. Just ask any legal immigrant. Some will argue that it wasn’t the Constitution, but we are still the heirs of the American Experiment, however we got there. Americans do have a better standard of living – at least we used to. The poor (“who will be with you always”) live better than in other countries because of all the innovations the free market created.

The anarchist-capitalists (Ancaps) (and ancient Greeks, Tytler, Tocqueville, et. al.) say that any form of democracy leads to tyranny, so maybe there is a better way, but it’s hard to visualize this in a country as big and diverse as America. Whatever the better and viable plan is, it would have to start small, anyway. So, why not reduce the size of the federal government to get started?

Getting to the table, as discussed in Article V: The Convention of the States is the harder part, because we are too big, too diverse and don’t think the same. So, what do we do about that? Try and get at least 2/3 of the Governors to get on board to influence state legislatures? Never say never. Anything is possible.

If we could amend the Constitution to mirror the intent of the Articles of the Confederation, we could at least slow down the demise of the republic by ending dependency on the government. Maybe we could try to get the states to require a [free] civics test when registering to vote so at least we would have better informed voters, and then, maybe democracy – American-style, can continue, not as a republic that was supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the majority,[LL1]  but as a confederation [LL2] – to protect us not only from the tyranny of the majority, but from the tyranny of the minority (central government/managerial bureaucratic class (aka deep state).  

---

 [LL1]A republic is a form of government in which the citizens elect representatives, who make all of the decisions for them. 

 [LL2]A confederation is a union or coalition of people, or of separate sovereign states, which have joined together for a common cause.

Without federal funds going to the states, the states will have to figure out whether they want to pay for free stuff for people who will not work or spend $$ on building infrastructure, a competent police force and ideals that create a better society, like libraries & parks, etc.

Life is in better balance when natural consequences occur when one does not go to work (don’t work, don’t eat.) Instead of “Why don’t you get a job?” it will be, You must get a job.

Obviously, it should not happen overnight, like in the event of an economic collapse or revolution. That’s when haste can make waste. And furthermore, if we prepare for the worst, allowing enough time for people to adjust to the new rules (there will inevitably be riots/chaos from loss of federal and state jobs and welfare ending) and that will need to be addressed, we might avoid a bloody revolution/civil war with an amicable semi-national divorce. It might be a little rocky, but we’ve managed worse – two wars on our soil. Let’s avoid a third bloody battle, yes?

So, the confederation would keep the states sovereign for all matters domestic: education, marriage, abortion, healthcare, social services, etc. – the topics that get people fired up in their local communities, let alone statewide, let alone nationally. Added bonus, a confederation (if maintained, and that is a big IF) is the Resistance for future tyrannies of the majority or minority. Plus, the Confederation sounds cool, like Star Wars. Maybe one day we might become more united like we were with the UK later in the 19^th century.

This idea needs a lot of discussion with many points of view. The anarcho-capitalist (Ancaps) have many good ideas, and democracy may be a relic from the 18^th century, but the idea that We the People does not exist anymore and is a relic from the past is flawed.  

We the People are still a Thing. We are Americans. We live Free or We Die. We need each other and We need to get along. We do better when we work well with each other. Ideas flow and create the American Dream for the Other and Ourselves. And, then somebody decided to put a comma after We, the People, and it went downhill from there. So, take out the damn comma and let the Qi flow.

Or maybe We the People was drilled into my brain as a child with a catchy song, so I am unable to think clearly?

Nevertheless, the political spectrum has also become incoherent and complicated with too many quadrant-octagon style models when, IMHO, it is a simple, linear line.

A “Marxist anarchist” is an oxymoron. Total government or no government – pick one, but the fact is, both modes are extreme. Fascism, in whatever form, is totalitarian, thus it is all the way to the left, not far right. James Madison’s argument that men are no angels is the reason we need a government is the same argument from the anarchists to have no government. Who is a fan of irony?

So, without a viable anarcho-capitalist plan to Rescue the Republic, it is difficult to see their vision. (Or, maybe I’m obtuse.) Perhaps, someday we can eradicate avarice from human nature, but wouldn’t it be an easier path to first reduce the central government and then let each state figure out their own version of the Ancap idea, if that is what the people desire? As for now, human nature continues to be self-serving, and avarice for power and stuff remains front and center, so why not try the libertarian way? Many historians know all about Alexander Hamilton’s avarice, for himself and for America, and that the AOC did not stand a chance with Hamilton’s influence over George Washington.

With freedom comes big responsibility and too many 21^st century Americans are no longer responsible when they take free stuff from the taxpayers. That must end, and it will end if there is no federal government to give out free stuff. In the past, churches, foundations and charities came to the rescue of those in need, not the government.

America has a lot of problems that even a better constitution won’t resolve, like how to get the fiat money supply out of private banking cartel hands for a money supply that does not hold the intrinsic value of gold. The Federal Reserve has long been overdue for an audit, and as much as Senator Rand Paul tries, it does not happen. Is it because the federal government in Washington is so far removed from our eyes, as Jefferson predicted? We the people need to demand this audit!

Since we have Thomas Jefferson’s permission, it is time to take a stab at amending the Constitution to get this runaway ball rolling, rolling down into the capital sewer. It’s a drafty dream that any attorney could toss out, and considering the likelihood that we will most likely not have an Article V: The Convention of the States since it would be nearly impossible to have 2/3 of the states concur in this current climate of division, this is most likely a pure fluff piece, mired in fantasy. But so what? You may call me a dreamer, but I’m not the only one. Maybe someday, we will have 50 sovereign republics and finally be united as one [for foreign matters only].