Silence Dogood Letters: April 2009

Books about our Government

"A Country I Do Not Recognize: The Legal Assault on American Values" by Robert H. Bork. During the past forty years, activists have repeatedly used the court system to achieve social and political change. On both the domestic and international fronts, they have accomplished substantive policy results that could not otherwise be obtained through the ordinary political processes of government both in the United States and abroad. In five insightful essays, the contributors to this volume show how these legal decisions have seriously undermined America's sovereignty and values.
"Separation of Church and State" by Philip Hamburger (Harvard University, 2002). What Mr. Wolfe does regarding the excesses of judicial activism in general, Mr. Hamburger does for the many distortions of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. He devastates Jefferson's notion of a "wall of separation" between religion and government, demonstrating that such a notion was utterly idiosyncratic at the time. Strict separation was revived by anti-Catholics in the 19th century and picked up by the court in the 20th, a development for which Justice Hugo Black bore much responsibility. The modern era of judicial hostility to organized religion and its symbols in the public square is directly contrary to what the Framers meant when they prohibited the establishment of religion. Though Mr. Hamburger does not trace the damage done by preposterous decisions in recent decades, this is a marvelous book.
"The Rise of Modern Judicial Review" by Christopher Wolfe (Basic Books, 1986). Christopher Wolfe addresses a transformation in constitutional law that "The Federalist" and Joseph Story could not have foreseen and that Alexander Bickel, despite his attempt to justify a modest non-originalism, deplored. The book traces judicial supremacy from its early "moderate traditional form" to the modern era, in which many judges think that the historic Constitution "does not contain sufficient constitutional (judicially enforceable) protection for liberty and equality," thus requiring them to revise and even overrule the Framers' intentions. Mr. Wolfe's critique of the court and the academic defenders of its activism defies easy summation precisely because of its comprehensiveness, erudition and analytical rigor.
"The Least Dangerous Branch" by Alexander M. Bickel (Bobbs-Merrill, 1962). Alexander Bickel attempted to resolve the central problem of constitutional law: Our political ethos is majoritarian, but the court, possessing the power to nullify laws democratically enacted, is countermajoritarian. The problem becomes acute when the court imposes principles not to be found in the Constitution. Mr. Bickel justified that role by saying that courts should apply principles drawn from the "evolving morality of our tradition." Written gracefully and offering many insights into constitutional doctrines, this book is the most intellectually honest, if unsuccessful, defense of non-originalism
"Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" by Joseph Story (Hillard, Gray & Co., 1833). Joseph Story, who produced this work while he was both a justice of the Supreme Court and a professor of law at Harvard, plainly lays out what the Constitution meant to the generation after the Founding. Story rejected the judicial activism advocated by some in his time: "A constitution of government is addressed to the common sense of the people; and never was designed for trials of logical skill, or visionary speculation." He offered rules of interpretation to avoid giving the Constitution "an extent and elasticity, subversive of all rational boundaries." The modern Supreme Court has nonetheless assigned to the Constitution an elasticity that is stretching it to as yet unknown dimensions.
"The Federalist" by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay. Written to promote the ratification of the proposed Constitution, this series of New York newspaper essays in fact had little effect on the outcome. They are, nonetheless, invaluable evidence of what leading proponents expected to be the operation and benefits of the new government as well as statements of the principles of republican government. Madison's essays, in particular, on the Union's "tendency to break and control the violence of faction" while preserving liberty are classics of American political thought. Alas, the authors failed to anticipate the political power that a judiciary entrusted with the Constitution would seize.
"Common Sense" by Thomas Paine Published in 1776, Common Sense challenged the authority of the British government and the royal monarchy. The plain language that Paine used spoke to the common people of America and was the first work to openly ask for independence from Great Britain.

Saturday, April 25, 2009

#3: The Silent are Silent No Longer

Dear Fellow Citizens:

A new breeze is blowing across this great country awakening in its path the silent majority. This silent majority believes in the spirit and letter of our Constitution. This silent majority will not sit idly by as those in Washington, D.C., squash and squander the legacy of our forefathers. This silent majority believes in the supremacy and meaning of the words "WE THE PEOPLE." It is, after all, "We The People" who first forged the documents of freedom and free market. It is "We The People" who spilt blood, lost loved ones, and sacrificed all so that others may bask in the glories of these freedoms and can prosper and can choose their own paths in life. It is "We the People" who are the backbone of this country and it is "We the People" who must secure its future.

The left now mocks the gatherings of this no longer silent majority. They dismiss the movement as naught. Others attempt to label us "terrorists." The people at these gatherings are patriots in the truest definition of the term. They desire freedom as expressed and fought for by our founders. They fear that the legacy of freedom left by people such as Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Franklin will evaporate as quickly as the morning dew upon the grass. They do not want to see that happen and for the first time in their adult lives are fearful that this may actually happen.

We the People must protect the legacy of freedom and carry forth the flame of liberty. My advice to all is to read the writings of our forefathers and be thankful for the unlikely coincidence that these learned men were assembled at a certain time and certain place and were able to create the Great American Experiment. Do not let the flame of liberty be extinguished!

I remain,

Yours in Liberty,

Silence Dogood

Monday, April 6, 2009

#2: The Pursuit of Happiness Definition Skewed

Man’s “unalienable” right to the “pursuit of happiness” is acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence. Nowhere in our founding documents is there written the right to have one’s “happiness” supplied or subsidized by the government. Some Americans now expect and/or desire, as part of their presumed right to happiness, government entitlements in the form of paid mortgages, healthcare, and higher education. Some politicians believe that it is the right of every American to have these entitlements provided at taxpayer expense. Such was not the intent of the founders of this country. Such is not the role of the government.

Certainly, Thomas Jefferson did not contemplate government entitlements as he penned the words “pursuit of happiness.” The term “pursuit of happiness” has been interpreted as narrowly as the right to pursue economic goals and as broadly as the right to pursue a general feeling of contentment and pleasure. Regardless of how the end goal is defined, one word does not change in our analysis, i.e., “pursuit.” There is no guarantee to happiness, no entitlement to happiness, no right to happiness. The right that exists is the pursuit of happiness. Many Americans, especially elected officials, have chosen to ignore this one word.

Just this one word, pursuit, tells much. The true measure of happiness comes as the result of one’s own hard work and self-reliance. Such was the vision of our founding fathers. Such is the spirit of the American dream.

Wednesday, April 1, 2009

#1 A Call to Action

Complacency threatens the continuance of our freedoms as we know them. "Complacency" denotes a feeling of satisfaction, but the dangers of this state of content must not be ignored. The complacent individual does not protest the ever encroaching reach of big government. The complacent individual is easily swayed to accept change. The complacent individual is not concerned as to the type of change occurring or the inevitable ramifications.

We cannot afford to remain complacent and unquestioning in the face of the promise of a “better world” or “change” which is micro-managed by the federal government. We must ask at what cost does this promise come? The man who fails to question those who seek change will fail to notice when the very freedoms which he holds dear and takes for granted are endangered. The promises of care and happiness made today may very well guarantee the loss of freedoms tomorrow.

Americans must not lie complacent. Do not think that the freedoms exorcized from people in other countries cannot happen here. Do not be lured into a false sense of contentment by accepting unquestionably the proclamations of the elite few.

Let your voices be heard. Do not sit idle.

Yours in liberty,

Silence Dogood

Silence Dogood Letters

Blog Archive