Some Things Never Change

Posted by Jeff Carter
on July 25th, 2012

Federalist Number three was also written by John Jay. He interpreted the Constitution. He wasn’t there, although many of them were his contemporaries. Ironically, he was the first Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court-where the primary function is interpreting the Constitution.

It’s really interesting to read these things 225 years later.

Jay writes about safety. I sort of wish we really would have considered that before enacting the Patriot Act after 9/11. I find hasty legislation no matter which party brings it is usually bad legislation. Hence, Dodd Frank and Obamacare are horrible pieces of legislation which ought to be repealed in their entirety. Sarbanes-Oxley, and the Patriot Act are not far behind. Start over, write the legislation in the spirit of the Founders, and I bet we have more appropriate laws.

Jay writes,

Among the many objects to which a wise and free people find it necessary to direct their attention, that of providing for their safety seems to be the first. The safety of the people doubtless has relation to a great variety of circumstances and considerations, and consequently affords great latitude to those who wish to define it precisely and comprehensively.

At present I mean only to consider it as it respects security for the preservation of peace and tranquillity, as well as against dangers from foreign arms and influence, as from dangers of the like kind arising from domestic causes. As the former of these comes first in order, it is proper it should be the first discussed. Let us therefore proceed to examine whether the people are not right in their opinion that a cordial Union, under an efficient national government, affords them the best security that can be devised against hostilities from abroad.

Jay’s argument was that as a nation, we would be less inclined to go to war than if we were a confederation of states.

But not only fewer just causes of war will be given by the national government, but it will also be more in their power to accommodate and settle them amicably. They will be more temperate and cool, and in that respect, as well as in others, will be more in capacity to act advisedly than the offending State. The pride of states, as well as of men, naturally disposes them to justify all their actions, and opposes their acknowledging, correcting, or repairing their errors and offenses. The national government, in such cases, will not be affected by this pride, but will proceed with moderation and candor to consider and decide on the means most proper to extricate them from the difficulties which threaten them.

Jay has been proven right, even in the War in Iraq, and the War in Afghanistan. Suppose we were a confederation. Only New York and possibly Virginia or Pennsylvania would have felt the need to go to war in the Middle East. However, as a nation, we debated, then voted to go to war. Unfortunately, it hasn’t been clean, cut and dried. But, it would have been worse had we not had each other.

The Federalist papers are extremely interesting. There was much diversity back in 1787. People from different countries, different faiths, different goals and backgrounds. Yet they found common cause in a bare bones government and Constitution.

The information in this blog post represents my own opinions and does not contain a recommendation for any particular security or investment. I or my affiliates may hold positions or other interests in securities mentioned in the Blog, please see my Disclaimer page for my full disclaimer.