They are, of course, practically Holy Writ for many of my blawgisphere
colleagues, who quote them often. Refreshing my recollection seems like
a very good idea, therefore — if only to make sure the Devil isn’t doing the
quoting.
Since the nomination of Harriet Miers for a seat on the
Supreme Court, I’ve been especially eager to sit down with my recently-
purchased copy of TFP. I’ve been wanting to see whether — beyond the
cronyism discussion in The Federalist No. 76 (prior post) — it might help
me better understand:
and “movement” (love that word) conservatives;
(3) the cocksure assertion by so many “federalists” that
only their construction-theory-alchemy offers an orthodox,
objective mechanism for interpreting the Constitution;
or originalist seat on the Supreme Court; and
they have heroically endured the gauntlet of academia (and
think-tankademia), while Harriet Miers has purportedly never
done “anything brave, anything that took backbone.” [Note:
Hamilton, Madison and Jay were real revolutionaries, as well as
intellectuals, who truly risked their lives by living their principles;
and Harriet Miers was a true trailblazer for women in the muy
macho Texas Bar.]
With all this in mind, I went to bed last night intending to spend a good
email arrived at my In Box overnight that seems to have saved me a lot
of time. I don’t know the identity of the sender, who used the pseudonym
PubliEsq. The Subject line rather cryptically says: “you can’t always
pick your followers.” There was no explanation in the message, but
merely a number of passages from The Federalist Papers, with links to
I’m not going to speculate on PubliEsq‘s purposes. I won’t even
add our breathless punditry to discern lessons we might apply to the Miers
confirmation process, or to point fingers at those who may be violating
the spirit of Hamilton, Madison and Jay.
Instead, I’m going to place the excerpts — from five of the numbered papers —
in a separate post, available here, and spotlight below a few lines from each
of them, which were in bold print in the version sent by PubliEsq. Those who
are far more familiar than I with TFP may be able to point us to other pertinent
sections. My hope, and probably that of PubliEsq, is that fair-minded people
will draw reasonable conclusions from the text and start to act accordingly.
from Federalist No. 1
. . . we, upon many occasions, see wise and good men on the
wrong as well as on the right side of questions of the first
magnitude to society. This circumstance, if duly attended to,
would furnish a lesson of moderation to those who are ever
so much persuaded of their being in the right in any controversy.
. . . Ambition, avarice, personal animosity, party opposition, and many 
other motives not more laudable than these, are apt to operate as well
upon those who support as those who oppose the right side of a question.
The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and
we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according
to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions
concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points,
as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders
ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of
other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human
passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with
mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and
oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong
is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no
substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful
distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and
excite their most violent conflicts.
“tny check” from Federalist No. 37:
[These papers] . . . solicit the attention of those only, who add to a
sincere zeal for the happiness of their country, a temper favorable to
a just estimate of the means of promoting it.
Persons of this character will proceed to an examination of the plan submitted
by the convention, not only without a disposition to find or to magnify faults; but
will see the propriety of reflecting, that a faultless plan was not to be expected.
Nor will they barely make allowances for the errors which may be chargeable on
the fallibility to which the convention, as a body of men, were liable; but will keep
in mind, that they themselves also are but men, and ought not to assume an
infallibility in rejudging the fallible opinions of others. . . . .
Experience has instructed us that no skill in the science of govern-
ment has yet been able to discriminate and define, with sufficient certainty, its three
great provinces the legislative, executive, and judiciary; or even the privileges and
powers of the different legislative branches. Questions daily occur in the course of
practice, which prove the obscurity which reins in these subjects, and which puzzle
the greatest adepts in political science. . . .
Here, then, are three sources of vague and incorrect definitions: indistinctness of
the object, imperfection of the organ of conception, inadequateness of the vehicle of
ideas. Any one of these must produce a certain degree of obscurity. . . . There
are features in the Constitution which warrant each of these suppositions; and as far
as either of them is well founded, it shows that the convention must have been
compelled to sacrifice theoretical propriety to the force of extraneous
considerations.
from Federalist 78:
To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the courts, it is indispensable that they should be
bound down by strict rules and precedents, which serve to define and point out their
duty in every particular case that comes before them; and it will readily be conceived
from the variety of controversies which grow out of the folly and wickedness of mankind,
that the records of those precedents must unavoidably swell to a very considerable bulk,
and must demand long and laborious study to acquire a competent knowledge of them.
Hence it is, that there can be but few men in the society who will have sufficient
skill in the laws to qualify them for the stations of judges. And making the proper
deductions for the ordinary depravity of human nature, the number must be still
smaller of those who unite the requisite integrity with the requisite knowledge.
update: Today’s NYT has an article that reminded me of the
treatment of Harriet Miers in the blogisphere — “Confronting
its focus is middle school, the article notes:
“And the Internet is making matters a great deal worse . .
because it provides a cloak of anonymity and removes
physical size and bravery from the equation. Children as
young as 7 or 8, who would never have dared to belittle
or confront a classmate face to face, are empowered to
be vulgar and vengeful at the keyboard.”
vain clouds
forming vain peaks
in vain
scolding
vain man…
the autumn moon
sparrows at the gate–
the brothers’ first
fight
all through
his temper tantrum
her calm
after speaking importantly
she quickly resumes
sucking her thumb
Tom Clausen
