Of course, he didn't write it in a vacuum. He sat and listened to "tedious and reiterated discussions" on every conceivable facet of governing philosophies, mechanisms, and strategies that was at the disposal of the great (and not so great) minds of the day. He pondered all of these points, took notes on the debates, and put together a summary, of sorts, of the generally agreed upon points - an organized summary otherwise known as the Constitution of the United States.
So, for those who feel that our nation really needs to look back to our roots, rediscover our soul, and cling to the pure principles espoused in our Constitution, one need look no further than the writings of James Madison to truly understand what the Founders had in mind.
But is that vision of the Founders realistic? Can we warp our government and the expectations and demands of our citizens back 200+ years to a time when government did a few things well instead of a lot of things poorly? This is a quest of many on my side of the aisle, and, indeed, the quest of many in the middle.
Back to Madison, for a moment. On March 3, 1817, a bill that had passed both the House and the Senate sat on President James Madison's desk awaiting his endorsing signature. It was "An act to set apart and pledge certain funds for internal improvement" such as "for constructing roads and canals, and improving the navigation of water courses, in order to facilitate, promote, and give security to internal commerce among the several states...."
To the House (from which the bill originated) Madison wrote the following to accompany his veto: "To refer power in question to the clause 'to provide for the common defense and general welfare' would be contrary to the established and consistent rules of interpretation, as rendering the special and careful enumeration of powers which follow the clause nugatory and improper. Such a view of the Constitution would have the effect of giving to Congress a general power of legislation instead of the defined and limited one hitherto understood to belong to them."
In other words, Madison was telling Congress that as much as he supports the idea of improving infrastructure in the country, the Constitution did not specifically give Congress the power to legislate thusly. And without a specific enumerated power, President Madison wasn't going to go along with it.
Can you imagine what our nation would look like if the federal government did not establish the Interstate highway system, establish and maintain navigational channels in rivers, lakes, and ports up and down our coastlines? And if that picture you conjure up in your minds be somehow appealing, do you envision any possible means by which we return to that era of governance, where we dismantle the broad swaths of the federal government that deals with "interstate commerce"?
While we're at it - "it" being the restoration of the governance as the Constitution and its author originally intended it - how about we dissolve the US Marine Corps and US Air Force. I don't recall reading about those two organizations anywhere in the text of the Constitution, or any of its Amendments.
My point is, we have to deal with the government we have today, not the government we may have had 200 years ago. As the former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the Army you have, not the army you might want or wish to have at a later time."
Sure, as you enter into the metaphorical war you'll need to make adjustments, and the government you have will evolve to meet your needs as those needs evolve. So yes, progress can be made to evolve government to focus in on accomplishing a few core missions effectively - rather than running madly in every direction trying earnestly to do everything for everyone, and, in the end, not doing anything well for anyone. But let's not have any of this embarrassingly silly pap about the immediate dismantling of the Department of Education, the Environmental Protection Agency, and a host of other federal agencies who engage in work that you don't see specifically enumerated in the Constitution.
Let's deal with what we can, and see if we can't refine these agency missions, get them to be successful at a few core missions, instead of everything.
But this is not something that I, as your fictional Presidential candidate for 2012, can do all by my lonesome by issuing a barrage of Executive Orders that would make President Clinton blush. Congress, the people you elect directly into office, has the power to legislate, and when they legislate, they tell the agencies to do certain things. I, as President, cannot tell my agencies not to do those things. So, as I sift through the thousands of federal programs that are currently underway, and identify those that are done according to law, and those that are undertaken by choice, I will pluck out those done by choice and determine if they are essential to our core goals. If not, I will toss them.
However, most of these programs spawn from your duly elected Members of Congress. So, I will seek to identify those programs that are not central to the federal government's mission, and refer these programs to you, The People. It will then be your responsibility to persuade your Members of Congress that you no longer wish for these services and programs.
Can I survey the federal government right now and tell you which programs I think can or should be eliminated? Yes. Will I? Maybe, maybe not. If I do, here's what will happen. All the groups (or, constituencies) to these programs will freak out, organize, and trash my good name. They will raise money amongst themselves, run commercial adds telling folks how much good their programs do for this person or that (by the way, I abhor governance by anecdote), and spend a good amount of time convincing you that I beat my wife, cuss at my neighbors, and listen to Cinderalla and Ratt on my Ipod - the Ipod I stole from my 8 year old neighbor.
So why expose myself to all of that when I can be vague and get away with it? Because that's not the kind of fictional campaign I want to run. I expect more out of the people who want to represent me, and I can expect no less than the same from myself.
So, as I ponder the tension between adhering to the Madisonian model of strict adherence to the narrowest of possible interpretations of the Constitution vs. the Rumsfeldian Realism, I will come to you next on a topic that will be sure to fire you up - because no matter who you are and what your beliefs are on this next topic, I have met only 2 or 3 people who have been able to muster the civility to remain...civil whilst talking about it.
Until next time, I appreciate your support of my fictional candidacy!
