Why human life makes sense - Marysville

(The date and time are dummy values to be updated when the meeting is scheduled.)

Why does a modern democratic government tend to become profligate and oppressive?

275 years ago in 1748, French theorist Baron de Montesquieu (1689-1755) published The Spirit of the Laws. In this book, Montesquieu presents a triad theory of government based on his conceptualization of the structure of the British government: legislature, executive, judiciary.

As far as I know, Montesquieu's theory of government influenced the structure of all democratic governments created during the period of revolution against colonial rule in the 1700s-1900s. As a result, Montesquieu's theory evidently became the most influential theory of government in the history of civilization, informing free peoples everywhere how to structure their governments.

In my work, I reveal a major flaw in Montesquieu's theory: he fails to see that the citizens have an essential role to play in governance by checking the government. I quote Montesquieu, showing where his reasoning goes astray, thereby contributing to his failure to see the essential role of the citizens. In the absence of citizen checks, a democratic government will tend to become profligate and oppressive.

I reconceptualize the theory of checks and balances as the theory of autonomous power centers — APC theory. In APC theory, the citizenry constitutes the foundational power center of a democratic government, while the three branches of government constitute additional autonomous power centers. This conceptualization embraces Montesquieu's affirmation that the sovereignty of a democratic nation lies in the citizens. Thus, according to APC theory, there are four basic autonomous power centers in a democracy:

• Legislature, executive, judiciary, citizenry

Each power center can check each of the other three.

APC theory completes Montesquieu's theory of checks and balances with two citizen checks on government: a citizen fiscal check and a citizen power check. A well-designed citizen fiscal check should solve the most intractable problem in democratic governance, namely, excessive growth in government cost and size. A well-designed citizen power check should solve the problem of excessive growth in government regulatory power. In short, with well-designed citizen checks in place, the citizens should check a government's propensity to become profligate and oppressive.

Since the United States constitution is structured according to Montesquieu's triad theory, the United States government suffers from the deficiencies of Montesquieu's theory. But with the addition of a well-designed citizen fiscal check and a well-designed citizen power check on the federal government, the natural dynamics of governance should produce a limited, decentralized system of government without a serious threat that it will become profligate and oppressive.

In the meeting, I will present these ideas for discussion.

(The date and time are dummy values to be updated when the meeting is scheduled.)

235 years ago in 1789, James Madison wrote a draft of what would become amendment 10 of the United States constitution. Amendment 10 vests the states with powers not delegated to the federal government, but amendment 10 provides the states no means for checking federal expansion into these powers.

I show that, in making this draft, Madison ignored principles for checks that he had expressed in Federalist articles during the prior year of 1788. I show that Madison's own Federalist principles imply that Madison's draft of amendment 10 would be useless in achieving the goal of preventing the federal government from encroaching into state powers.

I propose an amendment that provides an effective state check on federal power.

Madison's failure in drafting amendment 10 is the reason that Texas is legally powerless to contend with the federal government over keeping illegal aliens out of the state.

In the meeting, I will present these ideas for discussion.

(The date and time are dummy values to be updated when the meeting is scheduled.)

In his Dred Scott opinion of March 1857, Chief Justice Roger Taney affirms the equality of blacks, thereby delegitimizing southern secession and portending the end of slavery. Had Republicans been astute, they would have put Taney's equality affirmation to strategic use in a relentless campaign for the next four years, possibly preventing secession and war.

But no one bothered to read Taney’s opinion with sufficient care, so the most famous quote of Taney to this day is a slanderous misquote that reverses his original meaning. In fact, the public paid little attention to the Dred Scott rulings until Republicans advertised them in 1858 and 1860 in order to run against them in the elections of these years.

In the meeting, I will present these ideas for discussion.

(The date and time are dummy values to be updated when the meeting is scheduled.)

If you didn't know better, you would think that American antebellum history is a storyline crafted by Sophocles to make you weep. But it actually happened. And you may end up weeping.

In the meeting, I will present these ideas for discussion.