retrogressive impunity by Justin

It is fun to find passages in the persuasive writing of the Founding Fathers which fully document today's raft of scheming, petty, or malicious politicians. The fun is yet enhanced when the politicians under observation are found to be using the very tricks the Founding Fathers warn against in an effort to lead the people back to the innocence of the incipient days of Liberty when great Thinkers and Philosophers humbly donned the sacred robes of public service for the greater good of not only this supreme country, but humanity at large.

I've discovered that personal political success does not correlate with either intelligence or wisdom as evinced by today's specimens for scrutiny: the Utah state legislatures. Their recent antics raise doubt as to whether the legislators comprehend the appreciable difference between Public Entertainment and Public Service. I will not condemn them for this mistake, for it is an honest one, and their strenuous efforts in the pursuit of the Entertainment have brought laudable national and international attention to our state.

Lately it has been my privilege during the few prized reading minutes I have each day to apply my intellect to the study of The Federalist Papers. While reflecting upon the dedicated efforts of our Public Representatives in Congress, with serendipity I happened upon the following gem from Madison, who with lawyerly acumen was enumerating and expounding the several crucial roles of the Necessary and Proper clause.

If it be asked what is to be the consequence, in case the Congress shall misconstrue this part of the Constitution, and exercise powers not warranted by its true meaning, I answer, the same as if they should misconstrue or enlarge any other power vested in them; as if the general power had been reduced to particulars, and any one of these were to be violated; the same, in short, as if the State legislatures should violate the irrespective constitutional authorities. In the first instance, the success of the usurpation will depend on the executive and judiciary departments, which are to expound and give effect to the legislative acts; and in the last resort a remedy must be obtained from the people who can, by the election of more faithful representatives, annul the acts of the usurpers. The truth is, that this ultimate redress may be more confided in against unconstitutional acts of the federal than of the State legislatures, for this plain reason, that as every such act of the former will be an invasion of the rights of the latter, these will be ever ready to mark the innovation, to sound the alarm to the people, and to exert their local influence in effecting a change of federal representatives. There being no such intermediate body between the State legislatures and the people interested in watching the conduct of the former, violations of the State constitutions are more likely to remain unnoticed and unredressed. (emphasis added)

With regard to the Utah State Legislature, Madison's argument is somewhat skew in that it compares the violation of the Federal Constitution by the Federal Government to an equivalent violation by the State Government of the State Constitution, whereas the principal trespass of the Utah State Legislature concerns violations of the National Constitution. Madison lived in less certain, possibly more exciting times than ours. He was charged with the difficult purpose of convincing the states to ratify a new Federal Government, our Federal Government, and could not assay state sovereignty except to imply his arguments. This circumstance, however, cannot dismiss the truth of his last sentence. At least in Utah, the people are beholden to and dependent upon their state government at far greater a debt than any level of government in between. With a few exceptions for important local civic matters and active city councils, city and county governments in Utah are effectively administrative and bureaucratic.

But the real message we can apply from Madison is that the state governments are only less guarded from capricious expedients because there are not government bodies attentive to the interests of the citizens who collectively have tantamount authority to that of the state. This argument is somewhat vapid since the doctrine of state sovereignty fell out of fad sometime during the Civil War era.

Curiously, the issue of State Rights has been raised again by our intrepid representatives in the state legislature. The Constitution was constructed such that the Federal Powers granted therein would be explicitly vested in the Federal Government by explicit enumeration. Such is the wording in that document, but taken to the extreme, Madison protests that

In fine, the world would have seen, for the first time, a system of government founded on an inversion of the fundamental principles of all government; it would have seen the authority of the whole society every where subordinate to the authority of the parts; it would have seen a monster, in which the head was under the direction of the members.

This hypothetical monster was prevented from existence by the Constitutional clause Madison is expounding.

This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

However, state sovereignty is circumscribed by the Federal Powers listed in the Federal Constitution. Moreover, State, City, County, and any other Government authorized to operate in the United States cannot in good faith annul or reinterpret the Supreme Law of the Land without severe castigation. At least, that my hope duly predicated upon my faith in my tireless, watchful fellow citizens. If that faith should fail, then why not our government also?