Skip to main content

An Enlightened People Limits Government- Inspiration from Jefferson

Just finished reading The Young Jefferson by Claude G. Bowers. What struck me was that an enlightened people limits government not trusts it.  Jefferson, when it comes to political ideology defines "enlightened." As a lawyer, what rings the loud gong bell for me is his wisdom in ensuring the "Bill of Rights" which is for practical reasons, the only safeguard we have today against encroachment and police tyranny (namely the 4th amendment). There are several political lessons to be learned in this story. After Independence, and it was his hand that so beautifully coined the magic phrases that defined a movement (his and Tom Paine's Common Sense) Thomas Jefferson found himself in France as our diplomat to our chief ally. His main and constant thorns were trying to calm down the debtors (international as well as French) who were owed money that funded our Revolution because the weak Articles of Confederation rendered our government powerless in levying taxes, responding timely with one voice to treaty and diplomatic issues and handling our own debt (which left our colonies divided on issues against eachother). A new but limp and powerless  country was no answer. James Madison, Jefferson's protégé while Jefferson was in France, ran with the baton of convincing all the colonies to call for a constitutional convention to enact governing statutes that made practical unifying with one effective voice all the colonies. Our great statesmen were so happy to have achieved the goal of replacing the Articles of Confederation with a Constitution that empowered our government that after achieving this goal they quit, indeed they had achieved the removal of embarassments for our overseas diplomats and the world was happy to see a government in place that made the US accountable, responsible and powerful enough to follow through on obligations to others as well as itself. If the story would have stopped here, imagine a behemoth government like the Soviet Union or China where the all powerful government would squash dissent, freedom of speech, dissenters or minority views because this would have been us. When Madison sent Jefferson a copy of the Constitution in France, Jefferson immediately voiced his rejection. An all powerful government with no direct restraints on its encroachments on its people was dangerous. Imagine if all we had was a framework that created a government of checks and balances of an executive, legislative and judicial branch and a nothing more. When we think of the Constitution we think of the Bill of Rights: our freedom of speech, of religion, to gather, our protection against unreasonable search and seizure, etc. We think of the ability to pursue life, liberty and happiness without  government interference. But a government of "checks and balances" protects the people you might say- wrong. I spend my career reminding judges (the judicial branch) there is a 4th amendment, that police can't just stop you for no reason and even then so often judges ignore our rights (no secret that in today's MADD DWI hysteria, bad stops are rubberstamped). Without the Bill of Rights, we the people would be at the whim of the controllers. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

Here are some of the passages that inspired me. In short , we are to be eternally grateful that Jefferson only acquiesced to the Constitution in approval as long as a Bill of Rights were forthcoming which, despite a seriously hotly contested battle, is exactly what occurred. We the people are in large part free to be happy because of the brilliance of Mr. Thomas Jefferson. God bless  his soul.

To a friend who wrote that the Constitution did not need a Bill of Rights because the Constitution provided for checks and balances between state (subordinate) and the federal government- "a security which exists in no other instance": he replied "The jealousy of the subordinate governments is a precious reliance. But observe that those governments are only agents. They must have principles furnished them whereon to found their opposition. The declaration of rights will be the text by which they will try all the acts of the federal government. In this way it is necessary for the federal government also; as by the same texts they may try the opposition of the subordinate governments."

To an accusation that a Bill of Rights would be inefficient: "..though it is not absolutely efficacious under all circumstances, it is of great potency always, and rarely inefficacious. A brace the more will often keep up the building which would have fallen with that brace the less. There is a remarkable difference in the inconveniences which attend a Declaration of Rights, and those that attend the want of it.  The inconveniences of the Declaration are that it may cramp the government in its useful exertions. But the evils of this are short-lived, trivial, and reparable. The inconveniences of a want of Declaration are permanent, afflicting, and irreparable."

Jefferson wrote to Frances Hopkinson (signer of the Declaration of Independence and federal judge in Pa.): "What I disapproved of from the first moment was the want of a Bill of Rights to guard liberty against the legislature as well as the executive branch of the government; that is to say, to secure the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom from monopolies, freedom from unlawful imprisonment, freedom from a permanent military, and a trial by jury in all cases determinable b the laws of the land."

Jefferson, know that those of us blessed with the sacred license to practice law to ensure others' right to happiness and protection, will do our best to keep the Bill of Rights alive. I know you would be happy. For only a free people can be happy.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Covid-19, Violent Offender Release

The News has reported that inmates in jails are being released due to covid-19.  Is this true? Yes. It has been reported and confirmed that inmates in Harris County, Dallas County, some Texas prisons and a juvenile detention center have the coronavirus.  This is a problem due to increased community spread in the jail environment; which outside of putting inmates' health in danger, endangers the lives of the jail and prison staff and adds more pressure to the hospital community. Are jails and prisons releasing inmates? Yes. This is not a blanket wide release of everyone in jail or prison. Each state, jurisdiction (federal or state), and county is making their own guidelines on release.  75% of all inmates in Texas county jails are not convicted. They are awaiting their case resolutions.   What about the release of violent offenders? Govenor Abbot issued executive order GA 13 which forbids the release of anyone who has been convicted of ...

Justice

"Profiteers" and "Privateers" close in semantics and in meaning. The former meaning a person in today's society who capitalizes on a profit making opportunity. The latter a term dubbed on pirates who sailed the seas in search of loot. I am currently reading a biography (in my Founding Father quest) on the father of the US Navy: John Paul Jones. His character was impeccable. His mariner skills keen. His spirit to fight injustice unparalleled. As a Scotch sailor, he quickly joined the American bandwagon for "equality for all" versus a society of the privileged based on monarchy. Everything he did (his raiding of the English coasts in retaliation for the British raiding & burning of American eastern seacoasts), his sea battles, his diplomatic overtures in France were made on principle: to secure democracy for everyone. Yet his detractors claimed he was a "Privateer", a pirate. He had many opportunities to profit as a privateer but did not....

Is Blood Really The Gold Standard?

People think DWI blood tests are 100% accurate. Yet this is not true. People assume that a blood score is like DNA evidence- irrefutable. Once again, this is not true. People give up hope and resolve to plead guilty or no contest to their DWI thinking it is impossible to win. This is sadly not true. I was abhorred when a Houston blood expert (Ph.D in chemistry and former state lab forensic scientist) explained to me that if the lab tech accidentally pipettes one quarter of an extra drop into the test tube the score can be .07 too high! I was equally mortified when I learned that many results come from labs that do not properly validate their machines. A result is only as good as its measurements. These measurements must be properly tested (lower limit of detection, etc.) before one can rely on them.  In June of 2023 I will be spending a week in a university gas chromatography lab teaching other lawyers about the issues with testing. This will be my second time in this particular la...