Laird Minor, a good guy and a member of the Living Freedom Commentariat, has just published a new book. It’s called Kairos: A Proposal to Restore Federalism to the United States.
Okay, I hear the keyboards of the anarchists and cynics charging up now. I suspect I’m even hearing the sound of a few claws being sharpened out there. I suspect Laird’s expecting that.
Nevertheless, some things to note: Kairos is free for the next several days; Laird is more interested in getting it read than getting it sold, so he’s also offering a free .pdf copy to those who don’t have Kindles or Kindle-reading software, and his offer of .pdf copies will continue even after the Amazon price is no longer zero. You can share copies with your Constitutionalist friends or others who believe the fedgov can be changed “within the system.”
I’ve skimmed the book and it’s well-written and informative. Agree or disagree with Laird’s position, he offers some good history and food for thought. (Never mind that I’m one of the claw sharpening cynics myself.)
Is there a link for the .pdf?
Joel, I can (and will now) send you my copy. I’m hoping Laird will show up soon here in comments and give everybody a way to get one from him.
I might be interested in reading that, although it’ll have to wait until I finish/review Joe Collins‘ new book, Abnormal End. (And I don’t… well, I have a Kindle; it just can’t be connected to Amazon to download anything.)
I’m pretty dubious of the whole Constitutional Convention/Let’s throw out the old scrap paper and write new scrap paper/This time they’ll obey the rules concept.
Phyllis Schlafly, among others, has explained the potential pitfalls of a Constitutional Convention. I’m thinking now it’s like Forrest Gump’s box of chocolates analogy.
http://www.eagleforum.org/publications/psr/sept13.html
http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/2009/may09/psrmay09.html#concon
Must agree with Bear, but I haven’t read Kairos yet (Thanks, Claire.) Maybe lightning will strike and I’ll become a convert. Don’t bet the farm.
Shel — I’d consider a runaway con-con to be virtually inevitable, if there was to be a con-con at all. I believe Laird explains in the book why it doesn’t bother him and I hope he’ll come into the discussion here. But personally nothing would ever persuade me that a new constitutional convention would be anything other than a catastrophe.
And yes, replacing the existing piece of paper with a new piece of paper …
I’d like to read _Kairos_, too, but would need a .pdf to do so.
I shudder at the idea of a modern-day “Constitutional Convention” ― there are few politicians at any level who’re objective enough to speak intelligently or fairly on any subject. And as many subjects today are social issues which government has no constitutional right to address, I can see where a convention would unravel quickly into true constitutional chaos. It would make America pork barrel heaven.
Am interested to hear what Laird’s definition of Federalism is. In Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism the distinction is made between “European vs American Federalism”.
“Hope”, by L. Neil Smith has always seemed a beautiful, yet contradictory, book to me; I’ve loved it, even while I felt it wouldn’t work. But recently I heard the author explain it thusly (paraphrased): the only way we [libertarians] can make government work is to BE government. Somehow that simple explanation made better sense to me. Perhaps this is what Laird has in mind.
I’ll be looking forward to that PDF copy myself.
On another note, it looks like the kids are learning about the Government after all.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/04/05/students-fed-up-with-michelle-obamas-school-lunch-overhaul-menu-item-snapshots-spell-out-why/
Jim & Pat — pdf sent.
Thank you…
I disagree that a convention would be a runaway. It is far more likely to accomplish nothing, but if it gets a balanced budget amendment and a term limit amendment and a term other than life for federal judges it would be a rousing success.
While I agree that the perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good, I never understood the principle. If it’s fundamentally wrong for some people to rule over others in a social context–and it is–then what could it mean to have a “better” way of doing that?
I just never got that, but I admittedly suck at Pragmatism. I guess the claim is that six lashes are better than ten, but to me that’s like saying rape is okay because it’s not murder.
I am opposed to this push for a Con-Con and for those still not sure I suggest you read the four part series on this topic by Kelleigh Nelson at
http://www.newswithviews.com/Nelson/kelleigh178.htm
Kelleigh has really done a great job of explaining WHY a Con-Con is a disaster for America.
Actually there is nothing that inherently prevents the possibility of an anarchist state within the United States, provided the “guarantee” by the federal government that states have a republican form of government is tossed. So anarchists really need to take a look at these proposals. I have written about that here:
http://www.ncc-1776.org/tle2012/tle684-20120819-03.html
Also, all anarchists must also be Panarchists:
http://strike-the-root.com/panarchy-not-anarchy-is-answer
Personally, I don’t understand why “restorationists” want to restore the US Constitution, or use that as a starting point, when the Articles of Confederation were much superior. Many of the problems of the Constitution are automatically taken care of by going to that document. The Constitution is inherently a power-centralizing document.
I’m starting to look through Kairos and have already found one large problem: the proposed Constitutional Review Commission, while it allows the states to collectively nullify federal law, does not allow an individual state to do it. That to me is almost pointless, as you are again faced with the notion of convincing people in other states about something the people in one state find unacceptable. It is a homogenizing provision. Personally I don’t think that people in Oregon or Wyoming should be bound by every federal law that Californians and New Yorkers (or more accurately, their corrupt legislatures) find acceptable.
Further, he incorporates the Bill of Rights into the body of the Constitution, including the notion of the 14th Amendment, which was another power-centralizing provision. This is exactly wrong, if you want to decentralize power. There should be no bill of rights at all, at the federal level, because that inherently puts the federal government in the position of deciding on individual rights.
Unfortunately he retains the Section of Article 4 “guaranteeing” the states a republican form of government, which is completely unacceptable to anarchists. So this book appears to be just another rehash that would not do much good as far as I can tell.
Ammendments can be added or repealed without a constitutional convention. It might be difficult, but I think that was actually the point. IF it wasn’t included in the original document, there is/was probably a good reason why.
I beleive the document is still basically sound, with a couple of amendments that could stand to be removed/rewritten. It is the governemnt that has failed the constitution, not the othe way around. A convention will not fix the government.
So, I guess the premise for a convention would be to fix a document that is fundemantally sound.
Kairos (καιρός) is an ancient Greek word meaning the right or opportune moment (the supreme moment). …”a passing instant when an opening appears which must be driven through with force if success is to be achieved.”
Well, maybe. However, given that roughly 99% of The People now believe it is the job of the State (the Golden Calf of modernity) to take care of them—including roughly 100% of anyone likely to participate in a new Constitutional Convention (now that Ron Paul is retired)—I agree that it would be a very bad idea.
Nevertheless, I’d like to take a look at the book, and would prefer a PDF. Apparently the author doesn’t have a Web site?
Sorry, guys, I don’t have a website where I could post a pdf copy. If anyone wants to contact me directly for a copy my email address is lminor (at) nautiluscapital dot com.
I am well aware of the arguments against a constitutional convention. They might concern me if I were proposing a discrete amendment (such as term limits), but that’s not the case. I’m proposing a wholesale modification of the document, keeping most of what’s there now (while eliminating some of the worst changes since 1791) and adding some new stuff. It’s necessarily open-ended, but that doesn’t unduly frighten me because I don’t believe that states which are so upset about what the federal government has become that they take the extraordinary step of calling for a convention would then turn around and appoint delegates who don’t share the same mindset. And since it takes 2/3rds of the states to successfully make the call, the 1/3 which disagree can send any delegates they like; that minority can be managed. (And don’t forget that it takes 3/4ths of the states to approve any changes, so if the convention does manage to turn out something truly awful it simply will fail to be ratified.)
I’m also aware of the argument that since they’re not obeying the rules now what makes me think they’ll obey my new rules. I’ve dealt with that by giving the states some new veto powers. It’s in the book.
People seem to fear a rewritten constitution because they like the one we have now. I like it, too, which is why I want to fix it, with the benefit of 225 years of hindsight. But, philosophically, what is the purpose of clinging to a “pretend” constitution which the powers-that-be blithely ignore when it suits them and whose language is routinely tortured to yield results which are clearly antithetical to the Founders’ intent? Does it really give you comfort to point to some theoretical constitutional “right” which is overridden by legislation, isn’t honored by the executive and isn’t enforced by the courts? Because that’s were we are today.
So, as I see it, we can either continue to conduct a rear-guard action, squawking and demonstrating against the depredations of the NSA, the BAFT et al, while our rights are continually and inexorably eroded away, or we can take action to affirmatively strip the federal government of powers it has illegitimately usurped over the last century and build stronger safeguards against any future such usurpations. We might lose. But I believe it’s a fight worth having.
Anyway, I appreciate anyone’s doing me the honor of looking at my book, and would welcome any feedback or reviews (either directly to me or through Amazon.com). I might even incorporate some of that into the second edition!
Paul, with respect to your point about individual state nullification, you are correct. However, I would make three observations: (1) The limitations on the federal remit imposed by my revised constitution make it far less likely that there would be any such federal laws to object to; (2) each individual state can still decline to enforce any federal law it dislikes, just as it can today, making such a law relatively impotent within that state; and (3) since each state reserves the right to unilaterally withdraw from the Union, the threat of such (especially if several states were so inclined), even if wielded by only a tiny minority of states, would work to temper the enthusiasm for any such offensive laws. Anyway, even if my solution isn’t perfect (and what is?), it’s infinitely better that what we have today.
BTW, I want to express my gratitude to Claire for giving me this forum. I’ve thanked her privately but want to do so publicly as well.
Downloaded the book, and will read it when I can.
IMHO the prerequisite to a successful (on my terms) constitutional convention is that the delegates and the people who sent them remember* overthrowing the king.
* “Remember” as in “my feet were frozen and my rifle was hot” not as in “I opened a book.”
OT: Really good, Claire.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/women-and-guns-women-and-freedom.htm
Re Constitutional Convention… No, No, a thousand times no!!!! While it may sound good…we would be opening a door that would only cause havoc. I don’t care what party one belongs to….the way things are today, with all the goody two shoes and idiots in congress…egad! There is no way in hell I woud ever trust ANY politician or party!!! The American People have been so brainwashed today that I highly doubt most could find their way out of a paper bag. Just thinking about how our schools are run and how they teach….we are headed towards being governed by a bunch of idiots that are dummer than a box of rocks.
Thanks for the PDF. I can see that I have a problem with Section 2 regarding arms. Specifically the Disabled.
I would also be interested in a PDF copy. In addition, I have both a drop box account and web space available that the PDF could be hosted at if the author so desires.
Thanks, TM! Laird? Want to take TM up on his offer? If so, I can facilitate you two swapping email addresses if one of you doesn’t want to post an address here.
“OT: Really good, Claire.
http://jpfo.org/articles-assd04/women-and-guns-women-and-freedom.htm ”
Thank you, LarryA. We’re developing an amazing team of writers over at JPFO. I’m proud to be part of the gang. Guess maybe I should post that alert to the blog, too …
Claire, hand waving in the back of the room for a copy
Grin
Amazon.com is good enough to e-publish the book for me, and I don’t want to abuse their hospitality. Does anyone know if they have a problem with posting a link to free pdf copies of a book elsewhere on the internet? They require that I establish a price ($2.99 is the lowest allowed, which is what I selected) although they do permit limited periods of free download (which is what we’re in now). I’ll renew that when I can. But if it doesn’t offend Amazon I’d be happy to take TM up on his kind offer. Any thoughts?
Better by far than the current Constitution, and even better than the Articles of Confederation.
BUT… I have trouble with the concept of the federal level. Totally unnecessary.
If the states are so strong, so in control of their own destinies, why not let them handle their affairs as 50 individual nation-states? The only confederacy-type “laws” necessary among them would be free and fair trade, and a mutual hands-off agreement when two or more states are attempting to resolve an issue.
Mutual defense _might_ be necessary in the case of international war, because of close geographical location of the nation-states. OTOH, 50 nation-states would be harder for a foreign country to deal with because 1) of the inability to pinpoint bombs, etc. exclusively to that state without hitting surrounding states, and 2) dealing with 50 _different_ diplomatic policies would be hard to handle.
Each nation-state would be too small and too financially insecure to worry about spying on foreign countries or each other; they’d be too busy trying to remain solvent and workable. (BTW, wouldn’t it be fun if nation-states started competing in a Business Fair ― invention, resourcefulness, technology, etc ― every four years, instead of the Olympics? Maybe math and science would become popular again, while the military would become “old-fashioned”.)
While “libertarianism” has never yet been tried, neither has a real “onfederacy” of nations, without interference from a higher authority. Why not combine the two? Every society needs a certain set of rules, but societies have been growing larger and larger and more powerful for the past few thousand years. Maybe it’s time to start growing smaller, and show what can be done when the emphasis is taken off the political and directed toward individual accomplishment.
Part of me wonders how this book compares to Restoring the Lost Constitution, by Randy Barnett. I started to read that, but he sent me off the rails early on by referencing a philosopher I hadn’t read, and relying on the reader’s understanding of that reference. I ended up on a now-long abandoned path which required reading Hobbes, which I found execrable. I should try that again (not the Hobbes part though). I figure anyone who’s a fan of Lysander Spooner ought to be worth reading.
I am pretty sure if there were to be a convention, the various states would not send their libertarians. They would send icons of the establishment to,represent their interests, sprinkled with has been lobbyists.
Yes, let’s not forget the people running state governments are hardly more reputable than those at the federal level.
I’m a bit mystified at the horror over a con-con – as if the federal government were being restrained by today’s Constitution. It’s not. It’s restrained by whatever they think they can get away with. That factor would not change.
As to 3/4 of the states needed to approve the changes, that is nonsense. The convention will decide how many states are required, and the number can be anything. And whether or not secession is officially included, if some states don’t agree they can’t be forced. Don’t forget, this is not 1861 any more. There is no “manifest destiny”, no lust for empire, no grabbing “empty” territories. Many people are tired of empire. In a convention, which means no established government, if Oregon, Washington and Idaho decide to go their own way, how can the other states stop them?
There is another way to break up this country (which I consider a good idea), and that is war, when the economy collapses. But to me, a convention is worth a try before going to war. A convention means an end to the current regime. That is what we want.
I should add to my comments earlier, not only should this convention leave room for an anarchist state, it should leave room for a communist and a fascist state too. The federal government should have NO say in the form of government of the states. I *want* a communist state, so all the communists move away from my state.
“As to 3/4 of the states needed to approve the changes, that is nonsense. The convention will decide how many states are required, and the number can be anything.”
Paul, where do you get that idea? True, the convention would establish its own rules of procedure, etc. (all of which is discussed in Chapter 11), but whatever they report out would have to be ratified by the states to become effective, and Article V of the (current) Constitution is explicit about the process.
The Articles of Confederation required unanimous consent of all 13 states for any changes made to them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation
The delegates who met to amend the Articles simply created a new document, the U.S. Constitution, which did away with the requirement for unanimity. They were the original runaway con-con. They had no authority to toss out the Articles and come up with an entirely new government — but they did.
If they could do that while the newborn country was still sensitive about its freedom and the newborn states still inclined to guard their powers, certainly nothing could stop a 21st-century con-con from decreeing anything its delegates thought might fly. Ratification by 3/4 of the states is merely an artifact of the document they’d be meeting to throw away.
Couldn’t have said it better…
It is pretty amusing that the full name of the Articles of Confederation was, “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union”. It lasted 12 years…
True, Claire, but only to a point. Yes, the Articles did require unanimous consent to amendment, whereas the Constitution specified the approval of only 3/4ths of the states for ratification. But as a practical matter that was irrelevant as the new Constitution was ratified by 100% of the then-existing states. (Rhode Island was the only holdout, and would simply have been excluded from the new United States, but it subsequently ratified the Constitution in 1790.)
As to whether it was a “runaway” convention, that depends upon your interpretation of its mandate. The Convention was called “to devise such further provisions as shall appear to them necessary to render the constitution of the Federal Government adequate to the exigencies of the Union.” Some took that charge more literally than others (it was contentious even in its day), but I take the view that a wholesale redrafting of the nation’s organic document, as opposed to more modest modifications to the Articles, was properly within its purview. An amendment of the whole, as it were.
Anyway, I find it mildly ironic that the document which we so venerate today, which has been reduced to a “pretend” constitution ignored more than observed, and which many of us would like to see restored to its former glory, was itself the product of a soi disant “runaway convention” the repeat of which is now the object of such fear. Do we really believe that the authors of the original Constitution were that much brighter or more enlightened than their modern counterparts would be? Possibly, but I’m not convinced. And if a substantial majority of the people (sufficient to result in ratification by 3/4th of the states) truly believes that an omnipotent federal government is what is needed in the 21st Century, isn’t that their right? A nation’s constitution should reflect political reality; otherwise it’s a fraud. But that’s where we are today.
So I say, let’s have that national debate and decide as a people what we want in our government. We haven’t had that debate, and as a consequence we have by default permitted the federal government (and its courts) to define the scope of its own powers. If what it has become is the will of the people, so be it; modify the Constitution to reflect reality. But that should be a conscious choice, not the consequence of our own lethargy and the fear of something worse. That “something worse” is happening now, by degrees. Let’s meet it head on, rather than hiding under the bed with our fingers in our ears.
On a side note, truly I appreciate all the criticisms voiced here. Obviously I don’t agree with them all, and believe I have reasonable answers to them, but it is certainly clear that I will need to devote more attention to these issues in the next edition (if there is one). Thank you all.
> Do we really believe that the authors of the original Constitution were that much brighter or more enlightened than their modern counterparts would be?
It’s that their political philosophy is grounded in Progressivism, fueled by both Marxist and Fascist thinking. The authors of the U.S. Constitution were more Lockean, even though they did do it while Jefferson was in France. Whom do you suppose their modern counterparts would be like? Stephen Levy and Randy Barnett? Or Chris Christie and Maxine Waters? Bloomberg maybe? Clarence Thomas, or Elena Kagan? How do those of us desirous of Liberty ensure that only those people who are fully on board with the concept of individual sovreignty are allowed to work on this new Constitution?
Realistically, not a snowball’s chance in hell.
As to any veneration of the original document, as a practical matter, a return to the original would be a vast improvement over the current situation. It’s certainly desireable from that point of view, even if it isn’t what some of us would consider “ideal”.
Laird — Well stated. I’m stickin’ with jed’s POV (and with a slightly more strict construction of what the delegates to that long ago con-con were legitimately authorized to do). But definitely well-stated. Thank you.
[And if a substantial majority of the people (sufficient to result in ratification by 3/4th of the states) truly believes that an omnipotent federal government is what is needed in the 21st Century, isn’t that their right?]
Wasn’t it Mencken that said, “The purest form of democracy is the lynch mob?”
Personally I don’t believe in rights at all, but if I did I wouldn’t be thinking in terms of tyranny legitimized by aggregation. This is hardly a way toward legitimacy.
[… decide as a people… …will of the people…]
It’s hard to take such collectivist notions seriously. We are not The Borg after all. There is no such thing as a “will of the people”. There are only gangs of people willing to threaten and bully others. Let’s not be putting make-up on a pig. If you want government defined by the most numerous or most powerful gang of bullies, then say it. Use honest language, not euphemism.
http://mises.org/daily/5343