In case you hadn’t noticed, the December 30 issue presented a new column by Douglas V. Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs comes to this newspaper with an impressive list of qualifications, Political Activist, Public Speaker, Constitutional Instructor, Radio Host, Publisher, author of two books, and best of all, Patriotic American.
His initial piece, James Madison and Judicial Review, may be a good indicator of just how knowledgeable Mr. Gibbs is about American history and politics. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it and look forward to seeing more of his work in the coming year.
I too, have a bit of knowledge about James Madison and the founding of the US Constitution, as well as the role played by such renowned personages as Gouverneur Morris, Roger Sherman, Charles Pinckney, Edmund Randolph, John Dickinson, Alexander Hamilton, Elbridge Gerry, George Mason, and of course, George Washington among the 43 who argued and hashed out this great document. Many seem to revere the Constitution as an inspired document, but I am certain that had you asked James Madison he would have said it was more perspiration than inspiration. The months of wrangling in the confines of the hall in Philadelphia through hot and cold weather produced a masterpiece of political concession and reconciliation. Toward the end, even George Washington despaired that it would never be finished.
The Federalists (actually a misnomer, since they worked for a National union and strong central government in opposition to the Articles of Confederation) eventually got most of what they were after but had to make concessions that included amending the Constitution at a later date to include a bill of rights. The fact is that the Federalists (Madison, Hamilton, Washington, etc.) did not want a bill of rights enumerated in the Constitution.
Eventually, Madison thought that by including a bill of rights it would quiet the opposition to Constitutional control by the Antifederalists. Madison became, essentially, the father of the bill of rights. His original proposed amendments were whittled down to ten and added to the Constitution.
The final, tenth, amendment of the Bill of Rights gave all powers not expressly included in the US Constitution to the individual states, “or to the people.” As we all know, the argument over states rights versus Central government became a huge issue in the mid-nineteenth century resulting in thirteen Southern states seceding from the union and a civil war being fought. Apparently, since the South lost, the tenth amendment is now interpreted to mean that states have any rights the federal government says they can have.
Gibbs’ contention that the federal judiciary has overstepped its bounds is well founded. The cases where the judiciary has legislated from the bench are far too many to present. Those of us old enough to remember the Earl Warren Supreme Court should be very familiar with judicial activist decisions that strayed far from both the intent and actual wording of the Constitution.
Here is California we are saddled with 807 new laws that went into effect January 1. Not one of those laws challenge the federal government or even attempt to pry even the slightest control from the massive organization that has become our central government.
Are you feeling like a criminal yet? Do you know what those 807 new laws are? Do you know all of the federal laws on the books? I don’t. And I am sure I have probably violated something in the code, although I have no idea what would be.
Maybe the states have too many rights. 807 new laws in one year! If you think things have gotten out of hand, it’s only because they are.
Welcome to the newspaper, Mr. Gibbs. I look forward to reading more of your work.
