During paternity leave in February, I decided to write my first book on COVID conflict. After many long days (and even more long nights), I have finally finished and am ready to release it!
The book lays out the various viewpoints or “camps” on issues like lockdowns, masks, etc. This is followed by an ethical consideration of how best to approach and navigate this conflict.
Spoiler alert: I expect COVID-19 is not over yet, even in America. Whether this book serves as a helpful memoir for the future, a processing tool for a difficult time the past many months, or a guide for this fall when debates about restrictions come up again, I hope it is helpful to your life and a blessing.
You can download a free PDF of the book below, but I have also made a paperback and Kindle version available:
After reading Federalist Paper #10 in particular, I had the desire to “translate” it into “readable English” because it was really hard to understand, but I felt like the content was so helpful in understanding conflict in our society even today. After 2020, we could all use a bit more understanding about why there is so much conflict.
People always talk about how they hate the two-party system. They hear people in government fighting so much about important topics and lose hope. I know I personally have heard that “James Madison invented the two-party system”. So, I wanted to know, “Did James Madison invent this terrible system of bickering and gridlock that we suffer through today?”
When I finally understood this popular federalist paper (as federalist papers go anyway), I realized that at least this paper isn’t quite saying that, but instead sheds really important light on why we see the type of conflict we do in our republic today and the manner in which we see it. He offers some opinions on how to reduce “faction” within a republic; but for me, the more important part was just how he lays out why we experience the conflict we do in the first place.
From this, I am inspired to embrace the conflict, but to encourage each other all the more that the way in which we do that conflict ought to be ever-thoughtful since we will always have it due to our very nature itself.
Summary
“When there are two sides of an argument or conflict about something going on in a country or state, the largest group in the conflict tends to be violent with the smaller group(s).”
The concern being addressed in this paper is that free nations will always have “factions” in them and that majority groups tend to be violent or oppress minority groups instead of upholding their way of life and their freedom to act as they please.
In order to explain this, Madison explains that factions are always going to exist in a free nation. In order to maintain freedom, you can only control the effects of faction. You can’t prevent factions altogether – it’s part of human nature. Because there is always going to be some degree of inequity in a free society, people are going to disagree on many topics and too often the vote will go towards the benefit of the majority instead of the common good. In other words, those in the minority too often become losers and the majority become winners.
He then devotes the second half of the paper towards how the negative effects of faction might be mitigated. Ultimately, he suggests that republics with a legislative body with fewer representatives will produce more vetted, “fit” leaders that will reduce the effects of faction. He also says that a national government balancing its power with state governments will prove helpful in placing focus on local needs without reducing the helpful ways in which a national legislature reduces the effects of faction in society.
Federalist Paper #10 – A modern translation
Written by James Madison, 1788, translated by Ryan Atwood, 2021
Liberty – definition: “The state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s way of life, behavior, or political views. The power or scope to act as one pleases.”
Part 1 – Why faction will always exist in a free society
1 – Large Republic: Best Control of Effects of Faction
When there are two sides of an argument or conflict about something going on in a country or state, the largest group in the conflict tends to be violent with the smaller group(s). This happens even with really well-constructed Unions of states so let’s investigate this thoroughly. The natural tendency of these “larger groups” to behave in this wicked way should make every person who prefers to choose their own leaders concerned. Therefore, if somebody can come up with a good plan to address this that doesn’t go against the principles of liberty, I’m sure it would be appreciated.
The enemies of liberty keep using the following excuse for why it is ok to use violence against the minority in their passionate speeches: “Governments where people elect their own leaders have been killed across the board when public councils have instability, injustice, and confusion.” This might seem true on the surface, but it actually isn’t.
The constitutions of each American state have made some valuable improvements as to how people can self-govern compared to a lot of ancient or even modern forms of government. They should be really proud of that. But, thinking these constitutions as they are right now are enough to adequately remove this danger would be pretty biased and naive. They aren’t as effective as one might wish.
Our citizens who are most considerate and have the highest moral standards complain that our governments are too unstable (even the friends of public and private faith and public and personal liberty). They say that whenever two groups get into conflict, the public good is forgotten about. All too often, whichever side of a conflict has more power wins the fight and the rules of justice and the rights of the smaller group just get thrown out the window. You might wish this didn’t happen, but the evidence says that it is at least somewhat true.
If you want the straight truth, sometimes our problems get wrongfully blamed on how the government handles things. However, the government can’t possibly be blamed for some of our biggest troubles. Specifically, we see distrust for public gatherings and people getting worried about citizens having too many private rights all across America right now. It’s kind of sad that not everyone understands that all levels of government are tainted with conflict.
2 – What’s a Faction?
“A group of citizens, either a majority or a minority, that is united together and shares some common passion or interest which either goes against the rights of other citizens or the overall interests of the community.”
3 – Faction Cure: Remove the causes of Faction or control its effect
There are really only two ways to deal with “faction”: You can either
Remove its causes – or –
Control its effects.
4 – Remove Causes of Faction: Destroy Liberty or make everyone think and feel the same way
There are also two methods of removing the causes: destroy the liberty essential for it to exist or somehow make every citizen have the same opinions, passions, and interests.
5 – Destroying Liberty: That would be worse than the factions themselves
Here’s the thing… trying to destroy liberty is far worse than having factions in the first place. Liberty is to faction as air is to fire. Without the nourishment of liberty, faction instantly dies. But getting rid of liberty because it promotes factions is as silly as wishing to get rid of air because fire needs air and fire is destructive.
6 – Equal Passions: Not gonna happen
The other option for removing the possibility of faction is as unwise as taking away the people’s liberty. As long as every person’s thinking isn’t perfect and they are free to reason, people will have differing opinions. As long as a connection between reasoning and self-love exists, one’s desires, feelings, and especially what one is passionate about will influence one’s opinions.
Property rights come from the people. But, since everyone has a diverse array of abilities, we can never achieve everyone getting the exact same property across all of society. The protection these property rights of the people is government’s primary function. Because government protects different and unequal abilities to get property, there’s always going to be some people in society who have bigger or better houses, cars, etc. than others.
Because there is going to be this “diversity of property” in any free society, you are always going to end up with different groups who have different interests and different concerns.
7 – Faction: Inherent in Human Nature
Because you are always going to have different groups who have different interests and different concerns, faction is part of the very nature of man. We see different degrees of it in different circumstances. People have different ideas about everything from religion to politics. Some of the differences will be about what direction things should be heading in and some differences will be about things happening right now.
All these kinds of differences, the strong desire that leaders naturally have to achieve something in their own interests, strong emotions people have, everyone having all kinds of different needs, people getting divided and being really strongly against one another, etc. all work together to make it more likely that we will oppress each other instead of cooperating for the common good.
People’s natural tendency towards a really strong “us vs them” mentality make even minor or meaningless or tiny differences enough of an excuse to stir up hate and get people really enthusiastic about conflict even to the point of violence.
But the most common and time-tested reason for people breaking into groups that don’t have the community’s best interests at heart is how property inevitably gets distributed unequally in any society. Folks who own property and those who don’t always have different interests. The same thing is true for people who lend loans and those who are in debt, etc.
Civilized nations have always needed to support different types of people: property owners, manufacturing, retail, bankers, and many other types of contributors to society’s production of goods and services. This makes for different classes in society that will have different viewpoints, attitudes, and opinions and you can’t really avoid that. The most important job of modern legislators is to maintain laws for society that regulate these various, conflicting interests.
8 – Legislators: They should recommend, support, and then be responsible for the various causes in society
Since everyone is biased towards their own causes, nobody is allowed to be a judge in their own cause. Plus, it would corrupt their integrity.
For even bigger reasons, people should never be involved in a lawsuit and be a judge for the case at the same time. Even so, the most important laws are basically decisions made by judges, not about the rights of individuals, but about the rights of large groups of citizens. The different classes of legislators are responsible for the laws they recommend and support based on the things that are important to their constituents.
Let’s think about a law about school choice funding. You’re going to have people who want to send their kids to better schools on one side of the issue and those who are really concerned about even more lack of funding for the schools that the families now have a choice to leave. Justice needs to find the balance between these two groups. Even so, both sides of the issue themselves need to be judges in the matter. Whichever side has more supporters must be expected to win out.
Should we make laws that encourage American manufacturing companies to produce here by restricting Chinese or Mexican manufacturing coming into the United States? If so, by how much? People who benefit from manufacturing jobs might be all for it, but what about those who benefit from cheaper foreign goods for themselves or their companies? There are always going to be people on both sides of the issue. Probably nobody involved is going to vote on the issue only based on what they think is fair or what is best for the country at large.
It seems really important that when those in charge decide property tax amounts for different types of properties, things should be fair and there shouldn’t be any favoritism at play. Yet, the ability to choose different rates of taxation on different types of properties might be one of the biggest opportunities for cheating and the most temptation for injustice available for those in government. With every extra dollar they overburden the minority party with, another dollar ends up in their own pockets.
9 – There’s always someone’s interests that get ignored
It’s naïve to say that “enlightened people voted into power will always take everyone’s best interests to heart and only enact laws that are for the public good.” You’re not always going to have people who are “enlightened”. There’s also always going to be multiple factors that go into these decisions, even some that feel totally unrelated to the policy at hand. Most of the time, the interests of one group will tend to win out and disregard the rights of another group or the good of the whole society.
10 – The effect of Faction must be controlled
Based on the evidence and reasoning so far, it should be pretty obvious that the causes for faction cannot be removed and that you can really only lessen the problem by controlling its effects.
11 – Having a majority faction: The downside of Popular Government
Let’s suppose you have a minority group who want to do something really bad or would be a disaster if they were able to do it. Thankfully, it might cause a stir, but it wouldn’t be able to do the terrible thing the way the constitution works.
But what happens when those in the majority want to do something really bad, oppressive, or disastrous for the country? In this case, the key question is, how do we keep “the people” in charge and maintain people’s individual rights, but also make it so that good things happen for society?
12 – You can’t trust a majority to “do the right thing” for the minorities in a free society
How can this be done? Well, it’s gotta happen 1 of 2 ways: Either get the majority to no longer want to do the terrible, oppressive thing or prevent them from doing it.
If the majority wants to do the terrible or oppressive thing at the same time that it can do it, you can bet on them doing it even if they know it’s wrong.
13 – It is what it is: True democracy can’t cure faction
And so, we realize that a true democracy can’t really “cure” the negative effects of faction(s) in society. You’re always going to have things the majority of a society wants to do and even if that thing is not best for those in the minority, there’s really nothing that keeps the desire to wield that power in check.
This is why we see a lot of heated disagreement and conflict in democracies, why democracies don’t naturally jive with personal security or upholding one’s rights of property, and why democracies don’t naturally last as long and often end violently.
Political theorists who snub their noses at this type of government very often make the mistake of thinking that giving everyone in society equal political rights automatically means everyone would turn into the same person and have the same opinions and vision for how things ought to be done.
14 – Good news: There actually is a way to address these problems
However, let’s not give up just yet. A society with a representative government (i.e. a republic) actually does have a way to fix these problems. If we compare the way a republic works versus a straight-up democracy, you’ll see what I mean.
Part 2 – Thoughts on the design of the balance of power in a large republic
15 – Differences between republics and democracies
The two biggest ways in which republics differ from democracies are:
Republics authorize a small number of citizens to represent them whereas democracies do not
Republics have the ability extend over a larger space more practically than democracies
16 – How many people should a representative represent?
One helpful aspect of a system of government where a small number of citizens represent the whole is that the views of the people get represented in ways that are clearly explained and that cut out some of the more extreme one-off views. Ideally, the people who get elected love their country, love justice, are loyal to their fellow countrymen, and are therefore wise enough to be less likely to sell out for short-term gain.
This way of doing things with representation by a few ironically makes the voice of the people more in harmony with the public good than if all of the members of a democracy got together to discuss an issue.
On the other hand, this setup can backfire if elected representatives are hot-headed and are quick to conflict, are biased towards the people close to them instead of the good of the whole, or can be convinced or bought by bad actors to betray the interests of the people they represent. So, the question is, “What is ideal number of representatives for every person in society? Is it better to have more or fewer?”
I think it’s actually better to have a smaller number of representatives even when they are representing an increasingly large group of people. Here are some reasons why:
17 – Fewer is better: Representatives are naturally more “fit for the job”
First of all, no matter how small a republic is, you need to have at least enough representatives to ensure there isn’t just a small group of elites who have all the power, but at the same time you can’t have so many representatives that everything is constant confusion. This means that every republic will have to find the appropriate number of representatives for a given number of people. The more people each representative represents, the more likely it will be that person will be “fit for the job”. For example, if you’re picking a representative for every 1,000 people, you’ll have more “unfit” representatives than if you pick a representative for every 750,000 people.
18 – Fewer is better: Representatives are more vetted
The second reason for saying, “better to have a representative represent more people than fewer people” is that it will be harder for a representative that is secretly cruel, violent, or immoral to get elected. This happens all too often already. When people are free to vote for whomever they choose, a greater number of people will be more likely to center on a qualified candidate with established character.
19 – Local needs vs. National issues
However, I confess that this way isn’t all rainbows and unicorns. The more people a person represents, the less familiar they will be with those persons’ local circumstances and small-scale concerns. Yet the other side of the coin is of course that the fewer the number of people someone represents, the more representatives will get attached to the specific interests of their small group of constituents and they might not be as qualified to handle large-scale problems that affect the whole country.
The U.S. Constitution tries to strike the right balance here by having a national legislature as well as individual state legislatures. The idea is that the members of the national legislature will end up being more qualified, have more people vetting their character, and will be more attuned to problems facing the whole nation whereas state reps will be able to focus on local needs and issues.
20 – Fewer representatives actually makes for less oppression of minorities
Another reason to lean towards having fewer representatives in a republic is that the frequency of oppression of the majority is reduced.
The smaller a society is, the fewer the number of groups there will be with different interests at stake. The fewer such groups there are, the more easily a majority group will be able to do oppressive things against minority group(s).
By contrast, the bigger a society grows to be, the greater the diversity of interests it will have. This naturally makes it more complicated for a majority to do something that invades the rights of other citizens. Or, if a bunch of groups have a common motive to oppress the rights of minorities, it at least makes it harder for these groups to act in unison together in their oppression.
Additionally, let’s consider a corrupt scheme some members of government want to carry out. If it is unjust or dishonorable, there are going to be more people proportionally who are going to have to chance to stand up to the wrong and keep the bad actors in check.
21 – Conclusions about an appropriate number of representatives
From all this, it seems we can conclude the following:
Having a union of states with both state legislatures and a national legislature helps with the need to properly understand and handle BOTH local and national issues.
It seems hard to deny having fewer representatives makes it more advantageous in preventing unjust schemes in government or people just doing what’s best for their locality instead of the nation at large.
The more variety of groups with different interests at stake in society, the harder it is for a single group to outnumber and oppress the others.
The bigger the extent of the Union, the greater the advantage you will have in opposing a majority group trying to make good on its secret, unjust wishes.
22 – Separate states slow the spread of wicked projects
In a republic of many states, a leader in one state who would work against the rights of other citizens or the overall interests of the community might start a “brush fire” per se, but it wouldn’t turn into a “forest fire” and spread into other states.
A religious sect with dangerous intentions in one state may sink to become a political faction, but it won’t prove dangerous as long as there are still other varieties of the sect throughout the nation as a whole.
Things like bad governmental financial decisions, the government forcing loans to be forgiven, the redistribution of property, or any other improper or wicked project, will be less likely to spread throughout the whole nation than in a particular state. Similarly, state governments divided into counties will also slow the spread of disorder for improper happenings at the county level.
23 – Love me that Union of states
You can see how having a union of states is a remedy for the diseases most likely to lead to grave consequences that face republican governments. I would encourage you to hold dear the idea of our republic as a Union of states in as much as you understand the benefits of it.
~Publius
Would love to hear what you think
I would love to hear what you think! After all, I’m just the translator and I don’t see things the way Madison does 100%, so you can’t really offend me 🙂 Here is a link to the original Federalist Paper #10.
It has come to my attention lately that America really could really use an upgrade in the way we do America. There is a visceral reaction by conservatives when they hear a sentence like this, however, what I am referring to is not the what, but rather the “how”.
It’s not a place… This country is a thought that offers grace for everyone welcome that is sought.
~ Bono
The “what” that is America is a not a place, but rather a great idea. We are reminded of this from many people these days from Bono to Sen. Ben Sasse of Nebraska. The rights that we uphold and have shown to the rest of the world how the experiment can work has been a truly remarkable and great thing for mankind. In this idea called America, the common man is the ruler. And rule he must. However, the people of any democracy or republic are naturally going to have their selfish interests and therefore we have settled on Capitalism over Socialism or Communism as an economic system proving over and over that it is by far the best way to keep us a prosperous, fulfilled, and free people. However, in such a context, the wealthy naturally gain a majority of the wealth and the commoner, even though they wield the power of the majority vote, continue to not gain economically at the same rate as the ultra-wealthy. My understanding is that this “imbalance” is inevitable in a free market. This has resulted in a back-and-forth of Conservatives and Liberals in power as they are diametrically opposed to a few key things.
The facetious way to describe the economic policies of these 2 groups are as follows: Conservatives are not beholden to share anything with anyone (see Ayn Rand) while Liberals are so foolish that they can never understand that forcing people to share money will simply be worse for all parties for the economy. Conservatives are the super-greedy money-grubbers while the Liberals are the pot-smoking morons who just want the world to give them free money.
At this point in the essay, I should mention that I will not be concerned with being fair in terms of numbers in this essay. For example, if you are a liberal, you would probably react to my previous statement by saying, “Hey, there are a lot more ultra-powerful money-grubbing conservatives than there are lazy, pot-smoking government-money-sucking liberals out there.” That may be true (or perhaps it’s not, but the impact is greater, etc.), but I am not so concerned as both statements are true to a degree, yet the points in this essay remain.
The optimist or the problem-solver (of which I am some combination) will say rather that, “Conservatives believe in individual liberty as a fundamental right whereas liberals want things to be fair for each and every citizen of a society.” The problem that the other side has with these statements are as follows:
When one has to choose between the two, the “Liberal pull” often values the economy “being fair” over respecting someone’s fundamental rights. In the original United States, federal money was used so sparingly and so carefully that even when a single bridge in Kentucky was going to be built using federal funds, the people complained that it wasn’t right to use other people’s money to build the bridge even though everyone wanted the bridge. They wanted to respect the rights of those around the country and not take their money for something those other citizens would never see lest the same thing happen to them and their descendants. Alas, this is the USA we live in today for better and for worse. Ayn Rand, who was a self-loving atheist with impeccable logic, advocated very adamantly that people don’t owe anything to their fellow citizen and should never be compelled to support each other in any fashion. Under this system, every responsible person would have the freedom to work hard and keep what portion of the economy they contributed to the world to themselves. This is great for those who are able to do so, but for the vulnerable, this doesn’t work out so well and therefore, this system in itself does not work out for the Christian, the “moral person”, or the compassionate.
The “Conservative pull” tends to value an individual’s rights over “being fair”. For this reason, they are always pulling the economy in the direction of less taxes, less discretionary spending on aid programs, less money being put into welfare (especially because such a program is abused to an extent by people who could be otherwise working). If the overall economy is doing better, it is a win for conservatives even if the lowest section of the population is not keeping pace with the ultra-wealthy. This is, after all, because the poor are not providing society with as much economic benefit as those who are making more money. Even CEOs who make way too much money for what they are providing and know how to play the game are ultimately making the economy more money if the economy is truly free-market. How much they ought to make is a different matter.
This tension naturally means that we go back and forth between liberals and conservatives being in power and pushing things successfully as well as inefficiently and irrationally to grow the economy as a whole, grow the economy for each sector of society, and at the same time protect the vulnerable through government aid efficiently. This also means that we spend boatloads of money that we don’t have to on political ads just trying to sway people’s emotions in the direction that people want to go economically (among other things) and if enough people are passionate about an issue, that majority will eventually win the election. Case in point, Trump’s base as a reaction to the Obama administration’s safe, but dawdling economic policy.
But there is a new factor at play now that we didn’t have at our disposal 200, 100, or even 50 years ago to the same degree we have today: Technology in the Information Age.
The question I think we should be asking ourselves as Americans now is, “Do we want to continue going through this same debate for the rest of the lifetime of our nation?” Questions and aspects of morality, foreign policy, etc. are harder questions to calculate a mathematical balance on (and should also be explored), but why shouldn’t we try to agree on some sort of calculation of balance based on mutually agreeable criteria instead of fighting over how many representatives, both corrupt and righteous….mostly corrupt, can get into power to ultimately push the economy in some sort of direction that is good for their side. Take the 2017 Tax reform bill that just passed. Conservatives are very excited about it and predict it will be wildly successful. I do not doubt it will. But, are all Americans using the same criteria for success? Clearly not. And do all Americans rule this country? Absolutely. Can we not achieve some sort of calculation balance in certain areas like taxes, economic equality, and protecting the vulnerable? Couldn’t the data we have at our fingertips now allow us to do this and move forward in an intelligent way?
A way forward
For example, one of the biggest disagreements or tensions in American economic discussions is always “The liberals would just prefer to raise taxes so high that business would suffer to the point where everyone would suffer due to the socialist policies of the Liberals.” I believe we can move past such questions and instead simply calculate, using agreed upon criteria, a tax policy that would help the vulnerable, improve the economy for each economic strata of our society, and drastically improve the economy as a whole. All we would have to do is use the data available today to determine:
The vulnerable
What programs are helping the vulnerable get un-vulnerable and sustaining a pace to get the overall population moving in a positive trend?
If I know how much each ounce of cereal I buy at the grocery store costs, shouldn’t I also know which programs such as the ones in the previous question produce a positive trend in helping the vulnerable get un-vulnerable?
Likewise, I should know how much impact $10,000 vs. $1,000,000 would have for an organization? i.e. what is the optimal point of investment to achieve the overall goal of a positive trend in self-reliance for the overall population.
What amount of money is required to protect the currently vulnerable in programs that actually help and are necessary? (i.e. if the 1st 3 questions are acceleration, this is the velocity question)
The overall economy
What amount of taxes for individuals of each strata + businesses (small, medium, and large) would actually be so much that the overall economy would suffer? i.e. where is the sweet spot?
How do we find a balanced agreed upon criteria based on what the people want as a measurement for this “sweet spot”?
How many strata do the American people prefer to measure? (e.g. Poor, Middle-class, rich? 7 categories based on minority groups and immigrants, etc.?)
If we moved towards this model, we wouldn’t have to have all of these meaningless conversations about who feels more fair and who can trick the masses into thinking they are getting a deal for their side. Let’s actually measure our values and construct an economic model based on it. Now for some slightly more interesting, but necessary questions…
Questions necessary for a selfish society that rules the land
If the majority approves the criteria for assisting the vulnerable, should ALL citizens be forced to participate in the model? OR Should the number of citizens that vote for the bill represent the percentage of the funds that will be mandatory and the remainder should come as part of a voluntary donation from tax-holders at tax time?
The latter would produce drastically fewer funds for what is needed and many of the vulnerable would suffer, but this would actually be the most democratic way to achieve such a system. I.e. if you don’t like it, your vote actually counts for reducing the burden.
Should we have the top priorities of balancing our budget by a certain year in time and beyond forever (as some suggest with a balance budget amendment) and have a clear, measurable strategy for paying off our national debt by a certain specific year? This would mean that all other calculations would be based off of what was first required for running the necessary functions of government (which of course are many varying levels of “necessary”) Many programs are much more crucial than we realize, but if the people can be involved in prioritizing these priorities then things will be aligned properly.
What balance of Ayn Rand economics vs. Bernie Sanders’ “democratic socialism” do the people want? We don’t need to pick 1 or the other. Just take a vote every so often with different options and go with that balance for taxes. It’s not hard.
For example, let’s suppose that
60% of the population wants the balance approach of taxing the rich as much as we can where it will not hurt the wealth of the bottom 90% of the population.
20% of the population wants to tax everyone until everyone below the poverty line get free money in the amount of assistance that would equal the poverty line (assuming the national GDP could sustain this based on its priority). This would effectively eliminate poverty in a fictional world where everyone was responsible with their money (so, meh, good enough)
20% of the population wants to have a flat tax where no one is punished for their success and everything is equal. Equal production, equal tax bracket.
If this is the case, can’t we just stop arguing about who will have enough votes to push their agenda all the way? All we have to do is construct tax levels every X year(s) that balance these priorities in a 60/20/20 fashion.
You can begin to see how we argue about the specifics rather than the criteria that reflect our values. Furthermore, since we are a republic, the power lies in our representatives. For us Americans, we are currently stuck in a system where Washington bureaucrats fight over votes that may or may not be in line with an overall economic design that we agree with. With this alternative model proposed here, we move this sector of our republic more towards a democracy and let people manage their own money with their individual votes. Best of all, agreed upon answers to questions, criteria, values, and priorities can be put in the hands of the people (albeit with some natural safeguards). I propose this newer model is still in keeping with our constitution and is the natural next evolution as the American people rule this great nation and perpetuate this truly great idea for generations to come.
Ryan's Blog 