tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post938421347949024454..comments2024-03-28T10:44:30.518-06:00Comments on American Creation: Joseph J. Ellis: When Historians AttackBrad Harthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17669677047039491864noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-20514505321928508662010-05-09T23:32:28.422-06:002010-05-09T23:32:28.422-06:00Yes, Mr. Bell, Jefferson wrote in private letters ...Yes, Mr. Bell, Jefferson wrote in private letters that a new constitutional convention should be called every generation [the natural cycle at that time, 19 years or so]. But he never proposed such a preposterous idea publicly, nor was he even a Framer of the Constitution in the first place.<br /><br />But that's not Prof. Ellis' argument anyway. Jefferson was musing in the quotes you allude to, which is OK. But he was also a supporter of the French Revolution long after it had turned most Americans' stomachs, John Adams from the first, and in time, George Washington, Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris. Oh, and the revolutionary French even threw Tom Paine in prison, although he said he only came there to help.<br /><br />Jefferson's arguments against the judiciary rewriting the laws and the Constitution still hold, by Ellis' own standard, which is the core subject here. He quote-mined Jefferson dishonestly. There are plenty of contravailing quotes as well, Jefferson respecting the Constitution as written, and indeed Jefferson was more an "original intent" guy than the current justices Ellis criticizes:<br /><br />http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm<br /><br />And Jefferson doesn't have much standing to comment in the first place. He was not a Framer.<br /><br />We cannot turn the American Founding over to Thomas Jefferson. The Founding included hundreds of other worthy men. And Ellis can't even make his case based on Jefferson, and that was the point of my essay, JL.<br /><br />In fact, I'm a little surprised, poking through this link<br /><br />http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1020.htm<br /><br />that Jefferson had that much reverence for the Constitution, more than simple prudence about overturning a workable order. He's more "lyrical" in the other direction than Ellis tries to infer for his own partisan POV.<br /><br />I've been meaning to research and write on how Jefferson was forced to [sort of] apologize to John Adams after they kissed and made up, about how Adams was right about the French Revolution and Jefferson was wrong in supporting it even into the Reign of Terror.<br /><br />What I read in those URLs, picking through the dates of his quotes, is a sort of evolution in Jefferson's own thought, that the Constitution might not be so bad afterall, and should be amended only with care, the baby not thrown out with the bathwater every generation---not to mention be run roughshod over by the Supreme Court, or as he called it when he butted heads with it as president,<br /> <br /><i>the judges of what is commonly called our General Government, but what I call our foreign department...</i><br /><br />Thx much, JL. I had intended to write something different in rebuttal [and indeed did, and deleted it], but you set me to thinking and reading deeper into the case. Upon further review, I find Jefferson more a constitutionalist than I originally gave him credit for.<br /><br />That's why we're here at this here blog, I reckon, not to debate, but to discuss what the other guy's saying. Cheers, mate.Tom Van Dykehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07121072404143877596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1237087217187172116.post-76270703849477343202010-05-09T21:05:22.647-06:002010-05-09T21:05:22.647-06:00Thank you for pointing out Ellis's opinion pie...Thank you for pointing out Ellis's opinion piece. I find it more solid and temperate than what I read above.<br /><br />When Jefferson considered national constitutions in the abstract, he had an idea that almost no other American founder shared. He believed as a principle that no constitution should last so long that more than half the citizens had not been of the age of majority when it was adopted—i.e., had not had a chance to participate in its creation and ratification. (Of course, he didn't consider the voting rights of women or blacks.) <br /><br />Jefferson once approached Madison with calculations of how long, under current demographic data, the US Constitution should be in force. It was, as I recall, about nineteen years. Madison responded with arguments on the impracticality of revamping the national system on that schedule. Jefferson contented himself with deciding that his own election in 1800, and the replacement of Federalists with Democrats, amounted to the voters' adoption of a new constitution. <br /><br />Such debates among the founders, even two as politically and personally close as Jefferson and Madison, support Ellis's point: from the start there were disagreements and disputes about the US Constitution and laws, and to view those documents as if they held a single meaning to the men who argued over them is poor history.<br /><br />As for Jefferson's thoughts on judicial overreach, it also looks like poor history to quote him in the abstract without noting how that letter reflects his long struggle with cousin John Marshall, the Chief Justice whom John Adams appointed in 1801. <br /><br />Jefferson opposed Marshall's ideas of judicial review, which became part of the foundation of American government. Jefferson and his allies tried to impeach Justice Samuel Chase because they didn't like his rulings. If the U.S. had adopted President Jefferson’s view of the Supreme Court as subservient to the legislative and executive branches, the judiciary would be a much weaker institution than it's been for the last 175 years. <br /><br />Some Americans might prefer that, but Supreme Court justices—clearly including those who speak loudly about "judicial restraint" and "original meanings"—would not. I see no member of the current or recent courts facing a law he or she dislikes and insisting that the Supreme Court should have <i>less</i> power to affect legislation.J. L. Bellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15405157000473731801noreply@blogger.com