Friday, December 26, 2008

'Strategic Shocks'

The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition.
-James Madison

Federalist 46 is a very important document. Madison lived in a time of powerful Monarchs, and feared the emergence of a strong Executive in the United States and what this Executive could do to the liberty of men. Madison's Constitution was designed to counter this threat by arming the population.

Madison did not envision the spread of voting rights to women, and recipients of government aid programs. If he had, he might have written about the threat of the economic collapse of a bloated and corrupt democracy instead of the emergence of a strong Constitutional Executive. He probably would have also codified voter eligibility.

Nathan Freier seems to get it, despite his use of the word ‘operationalizing’. Here is an excerpt from an interesting paper (you have to click on the link to download and read).

'As a community, the defense establishment swears to protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. DoD’s role in combating “domestic enemies” has never been thoughtfully examined. Thus, there is perhaps no greater source of strategic shock for DoD than operationalizing that component of the oath of service in a widespread domestic emergency that entails rapid dissolution of public order in all or significant parts of the United States.'

I guess it is comforting to know that this has not been considered, at least not openly. If I were asked the question of how to ethically ‘operationalize’ that component of the oath so many of us have taken in the economic collapse scenario, I’d say that the best way would be to openly admit that the Constitution, as it is currently being practiced, has proven itself to be economically unsustainable.

Then, in order to best support and defend the Constitution of the United States, that it should be suspended for a period of time, say six months. In this six months, the military could govern under a 28th Amendment:

In light of recent events, the military has temporarily taken control of the government. Amendments 11 through 27 of the Constitution are hereby canceled. Voter eligibility is hereby re-established in the spirit of that in place at our Founding, which shall be as follows:

(1) Men of lawful age, paying at least ten percent of their annual income to the federal government in the form of taxes, not including withholding, as evidenced by their 20xx tax return.

The military shall oversee a new election with these voter eligibility standards, at the soonest possible date, and seat new state and federal governments. The new Congress shall have the power to re-adopt and/or modify any of the cancelled Amendments, as they deem appropriate. It shall also have the power to codify new voter eligibility standards as it sees fit. The new Executive shall have the power to nominate replacements for all members of the existing Judiciary. The new Congress shall review and confirm these nominations in accordance with the United States Constitution.


The Constitution, as originally implemented, was designed by achievers, for achievers, and therefore encouraged achievement, to the benefit of all Americans. This system of government has created unprecedented levels of human freedom.

The Constitution, as currently amended, was changed by potentially well-intentioned lawyers, to spread political power to women and non-achievers, which, in practice, has bankrupted and corrupted the Founders’ system. This new system of government discourages achievement, and has led us to this point in our economic and political history.

This post in no manner advocates the breaking of any law. It simply suggests one alternative that the Army War College could explore as they debate the meaning of their oaths, in the scenario introduced by LCOL Freier.


Anonymous said...

I understand why welfare recipients shouldn't vote. You need not explain yourself.

But why not women?

I can think of a few reasons (impetuousness, tendency to empathy with the guilty or damned, historical sense of voting as per-household represented by the head, who was usually male), but none of them any /good/ per se.

I'd be willing to see one-vote-per-household, but not a blanket deprivation of the franchise to women.

Bill said...

I believe that women think in terms of families, while men think in terms of nations. I’d argue that the West gained strength until 1920, peaked for a few decades, and now finds itself where it is. The Philippine-American War (1899-1913) is nearly identical to our Middle Eastern Wars. We won in the Philippines.

I love women, and am the father of daughters, but note that McCain’s two poster businesswomen, Carli Fiorna and Meg Whitman, both lost shareholder value on their watch and were fired by their Boards.

Yes, there are plenty of women who are responsible and fully capable of participating in the political process. But there are many more women who watch Oprah. Because of the nature of creeping compromise, my vote is no. I bet a good percentage of the women who are responsible and fully capable of participating in the political process would agree with me.