Constitution Thursday

While Virginia and New York debate and eventually ratify, the issue is in doubt in North Carolina. The Federalists there have an unusual idea. But they also know that they are very badly outnumbered. Realizing that they are most likely going to lose the vote, they decide to take a longer view of things.

New York Pt 2

Benjamin Harrison barely moves the needle on famous Presidents. What most people know of him are two things. First, his Grandfather was a President. Second, he caused one of the greatest jokes on Archer of all time. But even today, his actions vis-a-vis the Constitution continue to resonate. What else is new, am I right?

By June of 1788, ten States have ratified the proposed Constitution. While the technicalities of Article IX have been met, most people understand that the reality is that for the Union to survive, it must be unanimous. Or at least everybody except Rhode Island, which we will deal with separately. 

New York is next up on the clock, and already the sniping between the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton, and the longtime Governor of the State, George Clinton (a Revolutionary War General and close friend of Washington's) has become both intense and deeply personal. Hamilton, unlike the musical, is deeply connected to the wealthy landowning elites, while Clinton is much more of an introspective "man of the people." His policies have endeared him to the Middle Class, while the wealthy landowners (Hamilton) have been cut out of New York's spoils.  

Of all of the States, New York is virtually the only one that has - because of Clinton's economic policies - emerged from the depression of 1780 in good shape. In fact, the State Treasury has over $3 Million (in 1788 dollars) in surplus. Clinton is wisely using this to improve New York's economy and - of course - keep the votes of the middle and lower classes. Hamilton, who married the daughter of the man Clinton upset in the 1777 Gubernatorial election, opposes the policies that keep New York's money in New York and not allowing Congress to take over the impost (tax) money that New York is collecting. In fact, at one point New York agrees, but petulant Rhode Island torpedoes the deal by refusing to agree. Of course.  

More than anyone, it is these two men, Hamilton, and Clinton, who will face off over the Constitution. Clinton will become the very embodiment - in fact, he is the man for whom the term is coined - of Anti-Federalist. He is not an anti-nationalist. He believes strongly in the Union and in liberty. But he opposes ratification. Hamilton is co-writing the Federalist Papers.  When everything is said and done, One of them will become a two time Vice-President. The other will become a controversial figure and the centerpiece of rewritten history...

Virginia Pt 2

Jay Leno recently said that he doesn’t miss Late Night TV because “everybody has to know your politics.” In 1788 Virginia, everybody knew Patrick Henry’s politics. Everybody knew James Madison’s politics, and Edmund Randolph and George Mason’s even Judge Edmund Pendelton’s.  I guess it’s what happened after everybody knew that really makes the difference.

In Maryland, a High school student in a Social Studies Class has a major issue with one of the class assignments. Her father tells her to refuse to complete it and then sues the school for establishing a religion. After all, goes the reasoning, schools cannot force a student to learn about another religion, right?

When a fellow named gamble, who was a convicted felon, was pulled over for a bad headlight, nobody was thinking to themselves, “Hey, would this have any effect on the Paul Manafort case?” Now they are, but the general feeling is that it won’t have any effect. Why not? Because no matter how hard you try, English Common Law prior to 1868 is not US Law after 1868. What else is new, am I right?

The City of Los Angeles passed an ordinance that requires all contractors to "disclose" all of their contacts and sponsorships (whatever that means) with the National Rifle Association. In Delaware, a man wants to apply to be a Judge on the State Bench. But, Delaware has a law that says that he is not qualified to be a Judge. Why not? Because he chooses to not associate with certain groups.  

At the end of the day, the real question is why do governments continue to pass laws that they KNOW are not Constitutional. These Governments pay (with tax dollars) for legal advice, so it's not at all possible that they don't know this.  

But even were we to be charitable and assume (yes, I know what it means) that they don't know, why do they keep proposing and passing laws that restrict liberty?

The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it. – ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 2

In Alabama, a man with a long record of violent criminal activity found himself on trial for armed robbery. The trial lasted two days and seemed pretty much slam dunk for the government. Then the jury began to deliberate. And deliberate.

After three hours, they sent a note to the Judge letting him know that they were deadlocked and unlikely to reach a unanimous verdict. after some extensive back and forth, there was one holdout. The Judge decided to take action. eighteen minutes later the Jury returned a unanimous guilty verdict.

And on appeal, the 11th Circuit, led by the brilliant Judge Ed Crane, overturned the conviction and granted the man’s habeas corpus demand.

Why?

To answer that you have to go back to Article 1 Section 9 and then back to 1670. A man named William Penn (yes, *that* William Penn) decided to push the limits of English law and defy the Crown. Of course, he was arrested and put on "tryal” in the Old Bailey.

What happened next is why Judge Ed Crane granted the motion for habeas relief in an Alabama Armed robbery case in 2019…

In Washington, D.C., the shutdown has paralyzed parts of the government. Meanwhile, business and life go on for commercial enterprises, including the making and selling of Beer.

But (insert ominous music here) the government is closed and cannot be bothered to regulate the commercial free speech that it has decreed is required in order for the Beer Brewers to label and sell their product.

So… if the government is required to approve speech, is it really free speech?