A little under 234 years ago in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, a farmer by the name of Daniel Shays led
a rebellion aimed at obtaining relief from high taxes and oppressive debt. It was the first armed uprising in America since the end of the Revolutionary War. Though Shays' rebellion was eventually extinguished, the inability of the federal government to respond with aid for Massachusetts led to the call for a Constitutional Convention to strengthen the
Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union. What happened at that convention in the summer of 1787 changed the nation and the world.
Late in the spring of 1787, delegates from the 13 United States
gathered in Philadelphia to discuss, debate, and recommend changes to the Articles. As the convention proceeded, it became clear that the result would be an entirely new government rather than a revision of the Articles. Several delegates left the convention in protest but most remained throughout the long, hot summer. The result of their labor was a new document, the one we refer to as the
United States Constitution. On September 17, 1787, the delegates completed their work and 39 of the original 55 delegates signed the Constitution and sent it to the states to be ratified. The government established by the Constitution was a radical departure from that of the Articles of Confederation as a new form of government was established, which is today known as
federalism.
James Madison (4th President of the United States) was the key architect of the U.S. Constitution and defended its genius in a series of arguments written for publication in the state of New York under the pseudonym
Publius. Madson's arguments were designed to persuade the people of New York, especially those who opposed the expansion of federal power in the Constitution, that the new national government would not be a threat to the sovereignty of the states. Along with his co-authors, John Jay and Alexander Hamilton, the trio penned 85 articles defending the design of the Constitution and addressing complaints raised by the anti-federalists, who were led by
Brutus. These papers are collectively known as the
Federalist Papers.
Madison, in his brilliant manner, argued that the new government would be no threat to the states because of the division of power that allowed each branch to check the power of the others. The legislature (Congress) held the power of the purse and the power to declare war. The executive (president) had the power to veto any act of Congress and controlled the military. This meant that both branches had to reach some degree of consensus before a bill could become law or war could be waged. Congress was also given the power to remove the executive via impeachment for 'high crimes and misdemeanors' or to override a presidential veto by a 2/3 vote in both the House and the Senate. The bar was set very high to ensure petty politics would not lead to impeachment proceedings. Unfortunately, the last 20 years has seen not one, but two politically motivated impeachments based on ideological differences between the House of Representatives and the president. That is not to say the events that led to the impeachment were not failures of leadership on the part of those two presidents (they clearly were and the Framers would have reacted with disgust to both of them).
One should not get the idea from any of this that the Framers should be deified or awarded sainthood. They were fallen, sinful men just like our current leaders are today. However, the difference is that they recognized this fault in themselves and attempted to build institutions that could thrive in spite of the failures of men. Where does that leave us today?
One of the biggest concerns of the Framers was the nature, scope, power, and character of the chief executive. They desired both vigor and competence in whoever would serve as President of the United States. Fully eleven of the 85
Federalist Papers were written to exegete the text of the Constitution as it regards the presidency. In particular,
Federalist No. 69 pertains to the character of the chief executive. Critics maintained that the new executive would be tantamount to a king. Not so, said Alexander Hamilton, for the president would have to face the people and win their support every four years to continue in office. Further, he could be impeached, removed from office, and prosecuted in a court of law for any wrongdoing. That alone should be enough to keep him honest, Hamilton argued.
Another of the major concerns of the Framers was the method of electing the president. While the Framers believed in popular sovereignty, they feared the power of demagoguery. Thus, an intermediary between the people and the candidates for president must be designed. Hamilton explains the genius of this system, the Electoral College, in
Federalist No. 68. In essence, the people of each state vote for a group of
Electors, who would supposedly be wise citizens with the ability to discern among the candidates for president and choose the two (each Elector had two votes in the original version of the Electoral College...one had to be for a candidate not residing in their home state) candidates best qualified to hold the office of the presidency. Each state would have a number of Electors equal to the number of seats held in the House of Representatives plus the two senators allotted to the state. The Electors would meet in their respective state capitals and cast their votes, which would be transmitted to the House of Representatives to be counted. The candidate with the most votes would be the next president and the one finishing second would be the vice-president. If no candidate received 50% plus 1 vote, the House of Representatives would choose the president (an event the Framers expected to happen regularly). The Senate would select the vice-president. The elections in
1796 and
1800 led to a reform of the Electoral College by the ratification of the 12th Amendment to the Constitution.
Our concern here is with the desire to protect the new nation from demagogues, or those who would appeal directly to the people by promising 'bread and circuses' to gain their support. In the early days of the republic, candidates did not directly campaign for the office of the presidency. It was thought to be beneath the dignity of a gentleman to campaign for political office. Public service was an honor to be bestowed upon the willing and worthy. It was a way of giving back to one's country. Educated men built up trust through years of dedicated service in the public interest. In fact, the first president, George Washington, was elected unanimously by the Electoral College and had to be persuaded to come out of retirement to serve his country. The men who followed him each had distinguished careers in law or public service or both. John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison each served as president during the first 28 years of the nation's history. Adams and Jefferson served as vice-presidents while both Jefferson and Madison served as Secretary of State in addition to numerous other public offices held. The idea that a man with no experience in government could run for the office of president, let alone win it, would have blown their minds, so to speak. The system they designed was supposed to prevent that and ensure that only a competent, well-qualified public servant could be elevated to the most powerful office in the world.
Fast forward 233 years and look at the system the Framers built. The Electoral College no longer consists of wise citizens able to discern among the choices for president and select the most competent individual. It is a wholly partisan body today. Each candidate provides a slate of party loyalists to the state who, if the candidate wins the popular vote in the state, promises to support that candidate when the Electors meet to cast their votes. Having a record of public service is now seen as a disadvantage by many citizens because technology allows candidates and interest groups such as Super PACs to easily engage in disinformation campaigns that distort and demonize their opponents. Candidates no longer have to stand on their records, they have to defend themselves against falsehoods leveled by secretive organizations, all while the third branch created by the Framers, the Supreme Court, nods its head in assent. The Founding Fathers would neither recognize nor condone a system that enables the election of an individual so patently unqualified to be president like Donald Trump. A president who riffs about injecting
UV rays or disinfectants into the body to kill the Novel Coronavirus. A president who then denies he said what everybody watching clearly heard him say. A president who revises the historical record whenever it suits him to do so. A man who was more unprepared to be president than any of the 44 men who served before him. A man who blames his own administration's failures on a president who left office a full three years earlier. This is not a man the Framers would have allowed anywhere near the Oval Office. Yet, it happened in 2016. We are all paying the price for it now.
Yes, America, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and the rest of the Founding Fathers have packed their bags and left the country. Perhaps we should consider doing likewise.
