The Federalist Papers were assigned one by one at The University of Chicago in Social Sciences I. Fall 1956. Read and discussed. Alexis de Tocqueville was assigned. Same course. The People Shall Judge in three volumes was assignee in part. Rep. Elise Stefanik does not return her calls. A dairyman and an important neighbor said that he would bring her to visit, yesterday. I’m patient. But I won’t hold my breath.
Tim Snyder has written on the importance of the daily newspaper. The North Country lacks a decent newspaper, weekly or daily. Substack is not a newspaper, agree?
Absolutely agree. What I noticed after retiring was that there was no more commentary or editorials in the local newspaper. My goal with The Front Page was to fill in those gaps and give context and insights into issues. Also, Will and I have over a half-century of institutional knowledge.
The last time Stefanik had a town hall was 2019 I believe.
She would not answer my question even though I repeated it loudly several times . She never did answer.
This was the event that the former local trump groups attended and claimed DeGrasse invited them to.
They filled one side of the room .... and quite obviously were there for intimidation purposes.
For a short time these groups did intimidate me, sent private messages, threatened to come to my home and workplace. Once I figured out that none of them had an actual brain I was no longer frightened . Pathetic.
I've tried to do the town halls but my questions were never picked.
I was lucky last year and was redistricted into 20...brief respite. Back in 21 now.
I am a frequent caller to her DC office. They no longer will even answer a simple question. But I do make my feelings known.
That's the best office to call as someone is always there.
I wondered if that was the last one. it was over in Hudson Falls/Kingsbury. I attended that one and one of Stefanik's people sat next to me the entire event. Wasn't sure if it was intimidation or trying to make sure I didn't say anything.
Tom Nichols on X described Trump loyalists, such as Bannon, Miller, Vance...as having "weird security issues" - he said that Stefanik has a different problem, "soulless opportunism". He got that right, for sure.
The 2nd Amendment is plain as day, it regards the bearing of arms by a militia. The people who will insist that the Constitution is not a living document are the very people who want to read a private right which does not exist in the plain text of the amendment.
It is clear that the founders were focused on militias and the types of armies that existed at the time and one only has to read the 3rd Amendment to get the hint, then read the 5th Amendment that again specifically mentions a militia.
But there is a case for the Constitution being a living document in that the 7th Amendment specifies a trial by jury for disputes exceeding $20 in value. I suspect even Clarence Thomas, or maybe especially Clarence Thomas, would find the suggestion of a trial over $20.01 ridiculous. How many times does $20.01 go into $4 million in gifts from billionaires?
Anyway, there is a private right to own weapons. Everyone has a right to property and guns are property like any other, all of which are subject to government oversight for the health, safety, and security of the people.
I agree. If the founders intended to create a right to bear arms as a universal right, they would not have (or should not have) predicated the right on a well regulated militia, which comprises a sub-set of the citizenry.
Gun rights advocates have enthusiastically embraced the Supreme Court changing its interpretation of the Second Amendment to significantly reduce government’s ability to regulate Arms. They need to remember these justices have set a precedent for a future Court to re-interprete the language to allow for an increase in regulation.
Mike I believe the following might not agree with your agreement that the Constitution living document.
“If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look further for an example, take the word “consolidate” in the address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It then and there meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the states. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the states, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.”
I’ve got $20.01 that says Madison would agree with me.
The distinction is that here he is addressing the changeable meaning of the words. I am addressing the unchanging intent of the words. Because facts of existence change the Constitution must “live” in the new reality following the intent of the document not being stuck in petty disputes over words and commas.
But if you insist on a direct reading of the actual words of the Constitution I am still correct about the 2nd Amendment which is literally only about the necessity of a militia.
Mike, perhaps we could text Madson and ask him if he agrees with you? If not, I’ll take that penny you can keep the twenty.
That’s rather cleaver of you, rearranging deck chairs. “The distinction is that here he is addressing the changeable meaning of the words. I am addressing the unchanging intent of the words.
What Madsion is saying, is that over time the meaning of words will morph into things beyond their original meaning therefore changing the intent of the original concept the words were meant to convey.
Yes, I rearranged the deck chairs to positions exactly aligning with what Madison said. I’m very clever that way.
Speaking of changeable meaning of words the 7th Amendment specifies “twenty dollars.” That is very specific text. Twenty dollars does not change in meaning. Surely a genius like Madison foresaw the financial implications of inflation therefore he intended twenty dollars to mean twenty dollars for all time. Case closed. Textualism wins!
Imagine this tho. Some unscrupulous president could rename the American monetary unit and render the 7th Amendment void! And why not? It isn’t much different than asking Mike Pence not to certify the electoral count and instead submitting a vote by an alternate set of electors. I suppose in your view Madison would find that fine too?
That twenty dollars is in the Constitution, it is the twenty dollars of the day the Constitution was signed, so if you’re a textualist it is unchanging til the end of time unless there is a Constitutional Amendment to change it. That would have to be the position of Thomas, Alito, Scalia and all the originalists.
I respectfully disagree. With inflation and today’s dollars, Madison would expect us to place $20 in context of the year we were interpreting the constitution and its amendments.
It depends on the perspective of the reader in that century or millennium and how educated the readers in power are. Ray Bradbury explains it well in his short story, “Sound of Thunder.”
Hi jill I believe you are replying to my, what Madsion is saying, is that over time the meaning of words will morph into things beyond their original meaning therefore changing the intent of the original concept the words were meant to convey.
If you are, then the following link will take you to an article which will explain it better than I can.
So if I understand correctly, what Madison was trying to say was he was worried that the changing meaning of words would lead, assuming a slavish adherence to the text without consideration of changing circumstances, to the government changing with them into something unrecognizable to the founders. Seems to me to be Madison’s ringing endorsement of viewing the Constitution as a living document that MUST be interpreted according to the intent of the original text! And it already has been, through amendments and common sense. If disagreements arise, that is why we have a Supreme Court, and that is why the court needs to be above reproach in actuality and in appearance. Which today’s court is not.
Tanyna, where in the following words of Madison’s do you find a ringing endorsement for viewing the Constitution as a living document?
“If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look further for an example, take the word “consolidate” in the address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It then and there meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the states. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the states, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.”
Here’s how I read it, paraphrasing to make it simpler. The founding fathers did love their complex sentences!
1st sentence: If you try to interpret the text only according to the words, as the meaning of those words changes, the government would change also.
2nd sentence: We wouldn’t recognize older laws if we used those changed meanings to try to figure out what the law originally was.
3rd sentence: It’s happening to us right now!
4th and 5th sentences: Look, only recently, “consolidate” meant to give strength and solidity to the union of the states.
6th sentence: Now they say it means destroying the states by giving their powers to the federal government!!
It seems obvious to me that Madison was not happy with what was happening in that 6th sentence. The changed meaning, if one didn’t consider the intent of the original word, was leading to an outcome I believe he was opposed to. That is why I think he was endorsing the idea of interpreting the Constitution, as time went by, according to the intent of the words not the actual words themselves which, as he so eloquently pointed out, can change in meaning over time.
Another example that I think proves my point is nowadays we interpret everywhere they said “man” or “men” to mean “person” or “people.” Back then, women weren’t even considered capable of participating in government. I don’t think they excluded women out of spite, just that it wasn’t part of their worldview. Culture changed, and meaning changed, but the intent didn’t because it was interpreted correctly. Unless you think women should never have gotten the vote, or been allowed to own their own property…
“A well regulated militia.” Each state has the right to have one: they’re called the national guard. A well regulated militia does not mean individuals printing ghost guns or unvetted individuals owning 20th and 21st century military style weapons, able to kill a room full of children, shoppers, or church goers in minutes. Even during the civil war, these weapons did not exist.
Even the term “bear arms” is a military term. It is not written as a right to own arms, or to carry arms, or to use arms. Bearing arms implies a martial purpose. A hunter sighting a deer was not bearing arms, it was hunting. Annie Oakley was never accused of bearing arms, in fact no woman would have been said to be bearing arms since women weren’t allowed in the military. Heck, it was a big deal if they were nurses in the war.
"There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity." ~ Robertson Davies
When I was the director of a library in her district, someone from Ms Stefanik's office called to schedule a "public meeting" . She didn't want it put on our calendar and requested our basement meeting room, rather than the much more visible main floor one. Contrast this with our State Representative, Carrie Woerner, who regularly holds well advertised and completely open meetings where she fields a lot of hard questions
ps Somehow, word of the meeting got out and Ms Stefanik was surprised to find some non- handpicked constituents waiting for her.
Wow! Really appreciate that insight. We at the newspaper feared that was what she was doing. She is very uncomfortable with confrontation or any difficult quetions.
Thank you, Ken....I learned a lot of history. Confirms that we need to teach history, need to learn civics, need to question...MLK said something like: laws will not make someone love me (or even respect me), but it can stop people from harming and exploiting. I think of all the philosophers who spoke of the need to restrain, though law (through government, through good government) human beings from doing harm...Restraint to preserve our own decency...
Between the radical right and left, it is difficult to hear or find reasonable, common sense, articulate, voices ‘staying the course’ of Madisonian democracy…thank you.
Ken,
What happened to Will Doolittle? Are you working in tandem? Or separately?
Sandy
I write on Monday, Wednesday and Fridays. Will writes on Sundays. We are a team.
The Federalist Papers were assigned one by one at The University of Chicago in Social Sciences I. Fall 1956. Read and discussed. Alexis de Tocqueville was assigned. Same course. The People Shall Judge in three volumes was assignee in part. Rep. Elise Stefanik does not return her calls. A dairyman and an important neighbor said that he would bring her to visit, yesterday. I’m patient. But I won’t hold my breath.
Tim Snyder has written on the importance of the daily newspaper. The North Country lacks a decent newspaper, weekly or daily. Substack is not a newspaper, agree?
Absolutely agree. What I noticed after retiring was that there was no more commentary or editorials in the local newspaper. My goal with The Front Page was to fill in those gaps and give context and insights into issues. Also, Will and I have over a half-century of institutional knowledge.
And you and Will do it well!
Not to one.
Elise wants to be Trump’s veep candidate. Talk about nightmare…
She will serve him arsenic in his tea. Tastes like sugar. Kills heart muscle. She becomes president.
Oh, that is dark.
She’s a planner. North Country White House.
A republic if you can keep it. Franklin.
Wasn’t Satan an angel?
Yup-Fallen
The last time Stefanik had a town hall was 2019 I believe.
She would not answer my question even though I repeated it loudly several times . She never did answer.
This was the event that the former local trump groups attended and claimed DeGrasse invited them to.
They filled one side of the room .... and quite obviously were there for intimidation purposes.
For a short time these groups did intimidate me, sent private messages, threatened to come to my home and workplace. Once I figured out that none of them had an actual brain I was no longer frightened . Pathetic.
I've tried to do the town halls but my questions were never picked.
I was lucky last year and was redistricted into 20...brief respite. Back in 21 now.
I am a frequent caller to her DC office. They no longer will even answer a simple question. But I do make my feelings known.
That's the best office to call as someone is always there.
I suggest everyone do just that.
I wondered if that was the last one. it was over in Hudson Falls/Kingsbury. I attended that one and one of Stefanik's people sat next to me the entire event. Wasn't sure if it was intimidation or trying to make sure I didn't say anything.
Probably both.
Tom Nichols on X described Trump loyalists, such as Bannon, Miller, Vance...as having "weird security issues" - he said that Stefanik has a different problem, "soulless opportunism". He got that right, for sure.
That sounds about right. Infatuated by power.
Dead inside. Thanatos. Civilization and Its Discontents. Sigmund Freud. Social Sciences II.
The 2nd Amendment is plain as day, it regards the bearing of arms by a militia. The people who will insist that the Constitution is not a living document are the very people who want to read a private right which does not exist in the plain text of the amendment.
It is clear that the founders were focused on militias and the types of armies that existed at the time and one only has to read the 3rd Amendment to get the hint, then read the 5th Amendment that again specifically mentions a militia.
But there is a case for the Constitution being a living document in that the 7th Amendment specifies a trial by jury for disputes exceeding $20 in value. I suspect even Clarence Thomas, or maybe especially Clarence Thomas, would find the suggestion of a trial over $20.01 ridiculous. How many times does $20.01 go into $4 million in gifts from billionaires?
Anyway, there is a private right to own weapons. Everyone has a right to property and guns are property like any other, all of which are subject to government oversight for the health, safety, and security of the people.
It’s not that hard.
I agree. If the founders intended to create a right to bear arms as a universal right, they would not have (or should not have) predicated the right on a well regulated militia, which comprises a sub-set of the citizenry.
Gun rights advocates have enthusiastically embraced the Supreme Court changing its interpretation of the Second Amendment to significantly reduce government’s ability to regulate Arms. They need to remember these justices have set a precedent for a future Court to re-interprete the language to allow for an increase in regulation.
All good points.
AK 47 with a Bump is insane; Soc Sci III. 58 dead in Vegas.
Mike I believe the following might not agree with your agreement that the Constitution living document.
“If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look further for an example, take the word “consolidate” in the address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It then and there meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the states. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the states, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.”
From James Madison to Henry Lee, 25 June 1824
https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/04-03-02-0333
I’ve got $20.01 that says Madison would agree with me.
The distinction is that here he is addressing the changeable meaning of the words. I am addressing the unchanging intent of the words. Because facts of existence change the Constitution must “live” in the new reality following the intent of the document not being stuck in petty disputes over words and commas.
But if you insist on a direct reading of the actual words of the Constitution I am still correct about the 2nd Amendment which is literally only about the necessity of a militia.
“A well regulated militia,” Does not mean unvetted individuals! Not in the 18th century, or the 21st, or any century, in my humble opinion.
Mike, perhaps we could text Madson and ask him if he agrees with you? If not, I’ll take that penny you can keep the twenty.
That’s rather cleaver of you, rearranging deck chairs. “The distinction is that here he is addressing the changeable meaning of the words. I am addressing the unchanging intent of the words.
What Madsion is saying, is that over time the meaning of words will morph into things beyond their original meaning therefore changing the intent of the original concept the words were meant to convey.
Yes, I rearranged the deck chairs to positions exactly aligning with what Madison said. I’m very clever that way.
Speaking of changeable meaning of words the 7th Amendment specifies “twenty dollars.” That is very specific text. Twenty dollars does not change in meaning. Surely a genius like Madison foresaw the financial implications of inflation therefore he intended twenty dollars to mean twenty dollars for all time. Case closed. Textualism wins!
Imagine this tho. Some unscrupulous president could rename the American monetary unit and render the 7th Amendment void! And why not? It isn’t much different than asking Mike Pence not to certify the electoral count and instead submitting a vote by an alternate set of electors. I suppose in your view Madison would find that fine too?
Is that 20 dollars on the gold standard or borrowed from the future. Two very different values.
That twenty dollars is in the Constitution, it is the twenty dollars of the day the Constitution was signed, so if you’re a textualist it is unchanging til the end of time unless there is a Constitutional Amendment to change it. That would have to be the position of Thomas, Alito, Scalia and all the originalists.
I respectfully disagree. With inflation and today’s dollars, Madison would expect us to place $20 in context of the year we were interpreting the constitution and its amendments.
It depends on the perspective of the reader in that century or millennium and how educated the readers in power are. Ray Bradbury explains it well in his short story, “Sound of Thunder.”
Hi jill I believe you are replying to my, what Madsion is saying, is that over time the meaning of words will morph into things beyond their original meaning therefore changing the intent of the original concept the words were meant to convey.
If you are, then the following link will take you to an article which will explain it better than I can.
https://www.neh.gov/humanities/2014/julyaugust/feature/how-did-cool-become-such-big-deal-0#:~:text=Moore%20says%20cool%20is%20a%20counterword%2C%20which%20is,psychological%20and%20emotional%20states%20%28a%20cool%20reception%2C%20hotheaded%29.
Perspective a way of thinking about and understanding something. Never knew there was a book but I did watch the movie https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Sound_of_Thunder_(film)
So if I understand correctly, what Madison was trying to say was he was worried that the changing meaning of words would lead, assuming a slavish adherence to the text without consideration of changing circumstances, to the government changing with them into something unrecognizable to the founders. Seems to me to be Madison’s ringing endorsement of viewing the Constitution as a living document that MUST be interpreted according to the intent of the original text! And it already has been, through amendments and common sense. If disagreements arise, that is why we have a Supreme Court, and that is why the court needs to be above reproach in actuality and in appearance. Which today’s court is not.
Nothing is more fairly distributed than common sense: no one thinks he needs more of it than he already has. -Rene Descartes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_Constitution
Tanyna, where in the following words of Madison’s do you find a ringing endorsement for viewing the Constitution as a living document?
“If the meaning of the text be sought in the changeable meaning of the words composing it, it is evident that the shape and attributes of the Government must partake of the changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject. What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense. And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders, will I believe appear to all unbiassed Enquirers into the history of its origin and adoption. Not to look further for an example, take the word “consolidate” in the address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It then and there meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the states. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the states, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.”
Here’s how I read it, paraphrasing to make it simpler. The founding fathers did love their complex sentences!
1st sentence: If you try to interpret the text only according to the words, as the meaning of those words changes, the government would change also.
2nd sentence: We wouldn’t recognize older laws if we used those changed meanings to try to figure out what the law originally was.
3rd sentence: It’s happening to us right now!
4th and 5th sentences: Look, only recently, “consolidate” meant to give strength and solidity to the union of the states.
6th sentence: Now they say it means destroying the states by giving their powers to the federal government!!
It seems obvious to me that Madison was not happy with what was happening in that 6th sentence. The changed meaning, if one didn’t consider the intent of the original word, was leading to an outcome I believe he was opposed to. That is why I think he was endorsing the idea of interpreting the Constitution, as time went by, according to the intent of the words not the actual words themselves which, as he so eloquently pointed out, can change in meaning over time.
Another example that I think proves my point is nowadays we interpret everywhere they said “man” or “men” to mean “person” or “people.” Back then, women weren’t even considered capable of participating in government. I don’t think they excluded women out of spite, just that it wasn’t part of their worldview. Culture changed, and meaning changed, but the intent didn’t because it was interpreted correctly. Unless you think women should never have gotten the vote, or been allowed to own their own property…
“A well regulated militia.” Each state has the right to have one: they’re called the national guard. A well regulated militia does not mean individuals printing ghost guns or unvetted individuals owning 20th and 21st century military style weapons, able to kill a room full of children, shoppers, or church goers in minutes. Even during the civil war, these weapons did not exist.
Even the term “bear arms” is a military term. It is not written as a right to own arms, or to carry arms, or to use arms. Bearing arms implies a martial purpose. A hunter sighting a deer was not bearing arms, it was hunting. Annie Oakley was never accused of bearing arms, in fact no woman would have been said to be bearing arms since women weren’t allowed in the military. Heck, it was a big deal if they were nurses in the war.
Arms, armaments, armory, army, men at arms, armor…
"There is no nonsense so gross that society will not, at some time, make a doctrine of it and defend it with every weapon of communal stupidity." ~ Robertson Davies
The last time Stefanik had an in person Town Hall meeting in Plattsburgh, was in 2017.
https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/33907/20170509/stefanik-faces-an-angry-emotional-crowd-at-plattsburgh-forum
You had to enter a lottery to be chosen to attend.
Imagine that in the US.
To have to win a lottery to be able to ask your Rep questions.
There were more people outside protesting then were able to meet with her.
She really is a coward.
She will not meet with the people she represents.
Correct. Hides.
When I was the director of a library in her district, someone from Ms Stefanik's office called to schedule a "public meeting" . She didn't want it put on our calendar and requested our basement meeting room, rather than the much more visible main floor one. Contrast this with our State Representative, Carrie Woerner, who regularly holds well advertised and completely open meetings where she fields a lot of hard questions
ps Somehow, word of the meeting got out and Ms Stefanik was surprised to find some non- handpicked constituents waiting for her.
Wow! Really appreciate that insight. We at the newspaper feared that was what she was doing. She is very uncomfortable with confrontation or any difficult quetions.
Cold as ice. Big Lie Fascist. Not a Lincoln Republican. McCarthy… Wisconsin.
Thank you, Ken....I learned a lot of history. Confirms that we need to teach history, need to learn civics, need to question...MLK said something like: laws will not make someone love me (or even respect me), but it can stop people from harming and exploiting. I think of all the philosophers who spoke of the need to restrain, though law (through government, through good government) human beings from doing harm...Restraint to preserve our own decency...
My compliments on your excellent newsletter.
Between the radical right and left, it is difficult to hear or find reasonable, common sense, articulate, voices ‘staying the course’ of Madisonian democracy…thank you.
Much appreciated.
Nothing worthwhile to comment on today.