Latest news with #TheFederalistPapers
Boston Globe
11-05-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Imagining a fourth government branch, a House of the People
The key word is 'facts.' A juror in the selection process is instructed that they should consider only the facts presented in a trial. Facts in this House of the People similarly would not be permitted to be chosen based simply on one's predilection. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Today figuring out what is factual, let alone even real, requires an active search for reliable sources. Too often citizens vote based on their instincts rather than giving time to a variety of viewpoints. (I confess to having done just that with my vote for Ronald Reagan for his first term as president.) Advertisement Elizabeth Bjorkman Lexington What we need is term limits and to get out from under two-party system After reading Josh Lerner and Marjan Ehsassi's 'It's time for a fourth branch of government,' I found myself wishing for them to take two constructive steps: Look closely at The Federalist Papers and study the historical record of overreaching legislative, executive, and judicial branch actions (for example, the administration of Andrew Jackson or the Warren court). Advertisement The Framers intended a complex, time-consuming process as a safeguard against emotional, parochial government processes. What we might derisively call gridlock can be frustrating, but it is as they intended. Many examples of overreach are a reasonable reaction to this circumstance. The Framers also understood human beings. They were fully aware that achieving a perfect balance of power among three branches of government was an ideal that would be tested often and, occasionally, not meet their standard. In their day public service was something one did for a time before returning to the farm, shop, or office. What our Framers did not anticipate was the advent of two distinct barriers to rational discourse in the performance of that service: the establishment of essentially permanent, nationally controlled political parties and career politicians. Since eliminating established national political parties has no realistic path, perhaps proposing an amendment to establish term limits would do more to encourage wider participation in government and, hopefully, open the door to a more truly representative Republic without resorting to creating an entirely new branch. Peter Vangsness Medway
Indianapolis Star
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Indianapolis Star
Beckwith's Three-Fifths Compromise view glosses over slavery expansion
'Our Fathers in forming the Federal Constitution entered into a guilty compromise on the subject of Slavery, and heavily is that sin now visited upon their children.' The bracing opening line of William Jay's 1839 book continues to sting hard. Jay's revered father, John Jay, was the inaugural U.S. chief justice, co-author of The Federalist Papers and canny advocate for the ratification of the Constitution. It was brave of William Jay, himself a socially conservative law-and-order judge, to so forthrightly assess the founders' flaws and to name the moral and political wreckage that the Three-Fifths Compromise facilitated. Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, by contrast, recently described the three-fifths clause, which counted three out of every five enslaved people toward each state's share of congressional representation, as a 'great move.' He claimed the compromise paved the way for slavery's end, embracing the fantasy of a morally and politically blameless founding. That he did so in order to justify dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion efforts to reckon with slavery's ongoing racist legacies dishonors subsequent generations of Americans who fought together in an interracial alliance to dislodge a truly evil institution woven into our nation's original fabric. Abolitionists like William Jay, denounced as 'zealots' and even 'anti-American' in their own time, understood clearly what the lieutenant governor does not. The infamous compromise gave southern states political leverage through additional seats in Congress and additional weight in the Electoral College to relentlessly shape national policy domestic and international policy to the advantage of slaveholders. Need a break? Play the USA TODAY Daily Crossword Puzzle. Slavery expanded westward through a massive and brutal internal slave trade, while U.S. diplomats demanded the return of enslaved people fortunate enough to escape the country and shed their bondage. The federal government undermined the First Amendment by allowing southern postmasters to interdict antislavery literature. Through so-called gag rules, Congress itself refused to take up antislavery petitions. The three-fifths clause, William Jay once wrote, ensured the domination of 'cotton, sugar and human flesh' in US policy. Many of the founders hoped that slavery would not last. Some even took personal and political actions that attempted to curtail slavery, including in the future state of Indiana. And, to be sure, southern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention would have delivered even more unshakeable advantages to their region if every enslaved person had counted toward their state's representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The framers of the Constitution might have done worse. The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass argued that the Constitution could even be used to thwart slavery if interpreted in certain ways. For such antislavery readings to prevail required sustained moral courage in the face of fierce headwinds, constitutional and racist. To embrace the lieutenant governor's sunny view of the three-fifths clause is to become captive to a version of the past that sweeps away the responsibility to identify our country's guiltiest compromises — and to act in each subsequent generation to overcome the legacy of those compromises. David N. Gellman is a history professor at DePauw University and author of "Liberty's Chain: Slavery, Abolition, and the Jay Family of New York," which won the Herbert H. Lehman Prize.
Yahoo
29-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Beckwith's Three-Fifths Compromise view glosses over slavery expansion
'Our Fathers in forming the Federal Constitution entered into a guilty compromise on the subject of Slavery, and heavily is that sin now visited upon their children.' The bracing opening line of William Jay's 1839 book continues to sting hard. Jay's revered father, John Jay, was the inaugural U.S. chief justice, co-author of The Federalist Papers and canny advocate for the ratification of the Constitution. It was brave of William Jay, himself a socially conservative law-and-order judge, to so forthrightly assess the founders' flaws and to name the moral and political wreckage that the Three-Fifths Compromise facilitated. Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, by contrast, recently described the three-fifths clause, which counted three out of every five enslaved people toward each state's share of congressional representation, as a 'great move.' He claimed the compromise paved the way for slavery's end, embracing the fantasy of a morally and politically blameless founding. That he did so in order to justify dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion efforts to reckon with slavery's ongoing racist legacies dishonors subsequent generations of Americans who fought together in an interracial alliance to dislodge a truly evil institution woven into our nation's original fabric. Briggs: Micah Beckwith and his Indiana DOGE bros are livin' large Abolitionists like William Jay, denounced as 'zealots' and even 'anti-American' in their own time, understood clearly what the lieutenant governor does not. The infamous compromise gave southern states political leverage through additional seats in Congress and additional weight in the Electoral College to relentlessly shape national policy domestic and international policy to the advantage of slaveholders. Slavery expanded westward through a massive and brutal internal slave trade, while U.S. diplomats demanded the return of enslaved people fortunate enough to escape the country and shed their bondage. The federal government undermined the First Amendment by allowing southern postmasters to interdict antislavery literature. Through so-called gag rules, Congress itself refused to take up antislavery petitions. The three-fifths clause, William Jay once wrote, ensured the domination of 'cotton, sugar and human flesh' in US policy. Many of the founders hoped that slavery would not last. Some even took personal and political actions that attempted to curtail slavery, including in the future state of Indiana. And, to be sure, southern delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention would have delivered even more unshakeable advantages to their region if every enslaved person had counted toward their state's representation in the House of Representatives and the Electoral College. The framers of the Constitution might have done worse. The great abolitionist Frederick Douglass argued that the Constitution could even be used to thwart slavery if interpreted in certain ways. For such antislavery readings to prevail required sustained moral courage in the face of fierce headwinds, constitutional and racist. To embrace the lieutenant governor's sunny view of the three-fifths clause is to become captive to a version of the past that sweeps away the responsibility to identify our country's guiltiest compromises — and to act in each subsequent generation to overcome the legacy of those compromises. David N. Gellman is a history professor at DePauw University and author of "Liberty's Chain: Slavery, Abolition, and the Jay Family of New York," which won the Herbert H. Lehman Prize. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Beckwith's Three-Fifths Compromise remarks show ignorance | Opinion
USA Today
05-04-2025
- Politics
- USA Today
Are we in a constitutional crisis? Most don't even know what the Constitution says.
Are we in a constitutional crisis? Most don't even know what the Constitution says. | Opinion Readers from across the country shared their views on American politics in a recent survey about a 'constitutional crisis.' Some fear dictatorship while others say progressives are fueling it. Show Caption Hide Caption Constitutional crisis in US? Some experts say so, but others disagree. Opinion and Engagement Director David Plazas wrote a column on the term "constitutional crisis" in America today. He discusses reader reaction. Ever since my column about the USA undergoing something worse than a "constitutional crisis" published, I have been corresponding daily with readers who have plenty to say. Some praised the column and agreed with the premise, but others argued the idea of a crisis is an exaggeration of Trump critics. One reader suggested I reflect on President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War for historical context, while another urged me to reread "The Federalist Papers" to get Founding Father Alexander Hamilton's view on the power of the judiciary compared with the executive branch. On the social media platform Reddit, a subreddit "r/law" shared the column, which drew more than 18,000 votes and 1,500 comments. In short, it's a topic people are talking about. Opinion: Trump is abusing his power. Is this a 'constitutional crisis' or something more? The Tennessean also published a survey and invited readers to share their thoughts. Below, find excerpts from a variety of comments for, against and unsure. One thing clear is that while Americans have widely different views on the state of politics in the United States, we are privileged to offer a platform for readers to consider multiple perspectives. That is important to maintaining a pluralistic democratic republic. What does the term 'constitutional crisis' mean to readers? Among those who think we are in one: "Disregarding the rules, norms, and structure that are outlined in the U.S. Constitution, putting institutional power in fewer hands." — Minerva Waxwing, Maryville, Tennessee "The constructs are not definitive. Loosely it could be argued that the precepts on which the Constitution was written are being compromised and disregarded." — Hannah McNeil, Nashville, Tennessee Share your opinion: Democrats disappointing you? How should they handle Trump? Tell us. | Opinion Forum Among those who do not think we are in one: "An effort by either of the three branches of government to subvert the authority of the other two. We've been dealing with liberal activist judges for decades, and we still are." — Robert Hand, Pleasant View, Tennessee "I see it as a gaslighting term when the minority party, most often Progressives, want to change the Constitution to get something they want that is outside of the Constitution." — Loretta Gilmore, Ontario, California Among those unsure: "To me it means that we are not following the laws set out by our Constitution. I don't think we are quite there yet. As of now, I agree with you. The Executive branch needs its feathers clipped. Does anyone in our government have the courage to do so? I am unsure." — Suzanne Yazell, Hermitage, Tennessee Are we veering toward dictatorship or is it all fearmongering? "When a judge issues an opinion the executive branch can't just do as they want. They should abide by the ruling and appeal. We are looking more and more like a dictatorship." — John Bench, Clarksville, Tennessee "'Constitutional crisis,' as used in the contemporary media, is a linguistic charlatan steeped in hypocrisy, clothed in all things foreboding, engineered to instill fear and uncertainty, of what, we are not certain, but surely it can't be good. Most Americans, born in this country, have no idea what the Constitution proclaims." — Ben Gentry, Cary, North Carolina "Legally speaking, I have no credentials or experience that make me qualified to say whether we're in a constitutional crisis. However, when a sitting president and his Cabinet hint and tease at saying they won't follow the Constitution (and don't say they aren't, I refuse to be gaslit over this) if it gets in their way … that is perhaps more concerning than even the security leaks over the Yemen strikes. At least adding the wrong person to a group chat speaks only of incompetence, but this supposed constitutional crisis speaks of malice." — Benjamin Browning, Tullahoma, Tennessee David Plazas is the director of opinion and engagement for the USA TODAY Network Tennessee, where this column originally appeared. He is an editorial board member of The Tennessean. Email him at dplazas@ or find him on X at @davidplazas or BlueSky at
Yahoo
02-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
'Constitutional crisis' question provokes debate on the state of US politics
Ever since my column about the USA undergoing something worse than a "constitutional crisis" published (March 25 online and March 30 in print), I have been corresponding daily with readers who have plenty to say. Some praised the column and agreed with the premise, but others argued the idea of a crisis is an exaggeration of Trump critics. One reader suggested I reflect on President Abraham Lincoln's suspension of habeas corpus during the Civil War for historical context, while another urged me to re-read "The Federalist Papers" to get Founding Father Alexander Hamilton's view on the power of the judiciary compared with the executive branch. On the social media platform Reddit, a subreddit "r/law" shared the column, which drew more than 18,000 votes and 1,500 comments. In short, it's a topic people are talking about. The Tennessean also published a survey and invited readers to share their thoughts. Below, find excerpts from a variety of comments for, against and unsure. One thing that is clear is that while Americans have widely different views on the state of politics in the U.S., we are privileged to offer a platform for readers to consider multiple perspectives. That is important to maintaining a pluralistic democratic republic. Among those who think we are in one: "Disregarding the rules, norms, and structure that are outlined in the U.S. Constitution, putting institutional power in fewer hands." − Minerva Waxwing, Maryville "The constructs are not definitive. Loosely it could be argued that the precepts on which the Constitution was written are being compromised and disregarded." − Hannah McNeil, Nashville Among those who do not think we are in one: "An effort by either of the three branches of government to subvert the authority of the other two. We've been dealing with liberal activist judges for decades, and we still are." − Robert Hand, Pleasant View "I see it as a gaslighting term when the minority party, most often Progressives, want to change the Constitution to get something they want that is outside of the Constitution." − Loretta Gilmore, Ontario, California Among those unsure: "To me it means that we are not following the laws set out by our Constitution. I don't think we are quite there yet. As of now, I agree with you. The Executive branch needs its feathers clipped. Does anyone in our government have the courage to do so? I am unsure." − Suzanne Yazell, Hermitage "When a judge issues an opinion the executive branch can't just do as they want. They should abide by the ruling and appeal. We are looking more and more like a dictatorship." − John Bench, Clarksville "'Constitutional crisis,' as used in the contemporary media, is a linguistic charlatan steeped in hypocrisy, clothed in all things foreboding, engineered to instill fear and uncertainty, of what, we are not certain, but surely it can't be good. Most Americans, born in this country, have no idea what the Constitution proclaims." − Ben Gentry, Cary, North Carolina "Legally speaking, I have no credentials or experience that make me qualified to say whether we're in a constitutional crisis. However, when a sitting president and his Cabinet hint and tease at saying they won't follow the Constitution (and don't say they aren't, I refuse to be gaslit over this) if it gets in their way … that is perhaps more concerning than even the security leaks over the Yemen strikes. At least adding the wrong person to a group chat speaks only of incompetence, but this supposed constitutional crisis speaks of malice." − Benjamin Browning, Tullahoma Agree or disagree? Or have a view on another topic entirely? Send a letter of 250 words or fewer to letters@ Include your full name, city/town, ZIP and contact information for verification. Thanks for adding to the public conversation. David Plazas is the director of opinion and engagement for the USA TODAY Network Tennessee. He is an editorial board member of The Tennessean. Call him at (615) 259-8063, email him at dplazas@ or find him on X at @davidplazas or BlueSky at This article originally appeared on Nashville Tennessean: US in constitutional crisis or is it gaslighting? You spoke | Opinion
