that is eerily disappointing to read.

Today's corporation executives probably couldn't understand all those words, especially when put in that order.

Great quote. We've been a reverse-fascist country for as long as I've been alive.

"The mischief springs from the power which the monied interest derives from a paper currency which they are able to control, from the multitude of corporations with exclusive privileges which they have succeeded in obtaining...and unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away…."
- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, 1837

There's a reason his monument statue stares at the White House all day and all night. Someone knew what they were doing.

He's probably spinning in his grave right now. Same for Andrew Jackson.

Amazing how the Strict Constructionalists, railing on about Activist Judges, misquoting the Founding Fathers on their supposed supplication to the Almighty White Father and assert the original Constitution must be seen as untouchable blithely skip the part of US history about the Founding Father's alarm, suspicion and contempt of inherited aristocracies and their distrust of corporations.

@lightaugust: a Big +1 to you for the day.

It's a good thing corporations employ people!

and a Happy Patriot's Day to you as well. :)

Man our founding fathers would weep at what we have let America become. I blame upper management.

@Trai_Dep: Thank you.

@axiomatic: Have you been watching "John Adams" on HBO? I really illustrates how absolutely wrong we've interpreted the Founding Father's intentions for this nation, and how slickly twisted our history has become.

@MrEvil:

"He's probably spinning in his grave right now. Same for Andrew Jackson."

Assuming they are spinning at a sufficient RPM, we may have found a great source of alternative energy!

Is there anything in or lives Corporations don't control or make decisions about?
War good/profitable - check
Gas prices - check
Health care/medications - check
Food prices/availability - check
Job market limited - check
Must purchase goods from China - check

Hmmmm - I don't think this is what the founding fathers has in mind.

@thefezman: I believe that may even count as perpetual motion, since they started spinning long ago and haven't lost any speed...

@Trai_Dep: Well, that criticism's a little misplaced. I think most "strict constructionists" these days are actually "textualists." The most famous self-described textualist is, of course, Antonin Scalia.

In essence, proponents of textualism believe that the *text* of a statute or the Constitution are definitive as to the scope and effect of the law. What this means is, generally, they aren't concerned about what the drafters of the law actually intended -- they're just interested in what the law itself says. Therefore, it isn't inconsistent for them to disregard these kinds of statements -- after all, it's just a quote from some dead guy. It never made it into the law itself.

I'm liberal, but sympathetic to textualism because I think it represents a desire to preserve the democracy and accountability of the government. We often hear about "activist judges" in connection with social reforms -- gay rights, regulatory powers, etc. However, most people don't realize that permitting the judiciary to indulge in lawmaking means that ANY political position that appeals to 5 Supreme Court justices can become law. Therefore, under the guise of finding the "meaning" and "spirit" of the law, many courts have actually transgressed the boundaries of the text in favor of corporations!!

Speaing of John Adams, another one that resonates with me in the same way as the Jefferson quote: "Well, posterity, you will never know what it cost us to preserve your freedom. I only hope that you will make a good use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in heaven that I ever took half the pains to preserve it."

Depressing to say that those with the most unfettered freedoms are those who head large corporations.

Sounds like he's placing responsibility on the state governments checking the power of the federal government...good luck with that one

@MrEvil: Don't forget Eisenhower.

@pal003: Provide Jobs - Check
Make Best Country to live in - Check
Create Innovation - Check
Rose us above socialist Europe - Check

@Bladefist: Have you ever been to socialist Europe? I have 3 friends who just moved to Sweden to escape this monopolistic, unhealthy way of life. I've never been, but I hear it's a much nicer place. Just because pea-brained, money-grubbing republicans cannot fathom any form of non-selfish living does not mean that this is the best place on earth. That's what we call arrogance.

@Bladefist:
Yeah, the "best country to live in" thing is subjective and pretty dubious, IMO. I would immigrate to western Europe tomorrow if I could; unfortunately, that's very difficult for us to do.

@Tripamsta: I can tell by your response you're an intellectual.

@modenastradale: Why? I would rather live in Australia or South Korea. I'll admit I have limited knowledge of each, but I hear they are far less polar opposites on politics. That gets more done, and south korea has extremely low taxes, yet manages to have universal healthcare. They seem to make both "sides" happy.

Corporations? Let's starve them until they're small enough to be drowned in the bathtub.

@Bladefist:

All four of your 'standards' are highly subjective, largely unquantifiable and generally impossible to prove.

Got anything other than opinion to support them?

@Tripamsta:

The only thing stopping YOU from going to Sweden is fear and atmosphere.

Too much whining here.
You don't HAVE to be in hock to the "monied interests" that Jefferson and the rest of the FF were rightfully afraid of. But yet...

We WANT cable TV with 150 mostly useless channels -Even though the company that provides it is an arrogant monopoly.

We WANT cellular service that can reach us any time ,any where for a low price- Even though the company's business practices border on abusive.

We DEMAND more and more gasoline as motor fuel for our big,impractical lifestyle appliances and then we cry foul when the enormous companies that make the stuff raise the price to reflect our insatiable desire for more.

I could go on. But the weird beards (like Tripamsta) have already tuned me out and would love to continue wallowing in their America loathing.If they would get the fucking nose ring out and pry their lazy ass away from that boob tube for a few minutes and take advantage of the opportunities that exist here,they wouldn't be complaining,they would get to work renewing and refreshing this great country and all it stands for.And yes, that means throwing the Republicrats out and putting the fear of God in their elected leaders that they will be next.

Simplify. Consume less. Use intelligence and self sacrifice as your weapons against the giant corporations that have their hooks in your life.Damn , this isn't hard.

@Snarkysnake: Will you marry me?

@Bladefist:
Because I like it there. Many western European cities are beatiful, charming, historic -- and modern and progressive at the same time. I've observed that people tend to be more open-minded, less insular, and just generally more in sync with my values than Americans are.

Also, Europeans have long adopted the "work to live" philosophy, and it shows. Yes, there's less material consumption, and yes, there can be odd and frustrating shortages in the infrastructure at times, but overall I believe most Europeans lead happier, more fulfilling lives than most Americans do. Finally, I really enjoy food; between Europe and the states, there's simply no comparison in terms of quality or value. :-)

@Bladefist: Provide jobs - jobs and middle class income have been on the decline, income inequality has been growing since the 80s and the Europe has been steadily closing the gap. You're right-ish, but the current trend says maybe not for long.

Make best country to live in - I don't know, we're overpaying for inferior healthcare, our currency's getting weaker and public transportation is generally shit. I like it here, but I'm well aware that I'm sacrificing my standard of living by staying close to my friends and family.

Create innovation - By what standard? There's no question that Americans do value innovation, but I don't see any evidence to show that Americans are any more innovative than, say, the Swedish, who created flat packing and revolutionized the furniture industry.

Rose us above socialist Europe - Socialist Europe is alive and well. Have you looked at Scandinavia recently? Their socialist meatballs are fantastic!

@modenastradale: yeah, strict constructionists are textualists are whatever neologism the right comes up with. They have to shift the names every few years because the truth catches up with the lies/inconsistencies they spoke that morning.
Same thing with Creationism and Intelligent Design. Same thing, new drag.

Here's a test: compare a reasonable policy and see if the "new" school of thought behaves the same way.

Say, the government wants security cameras in your house at all times, for your security, and so The Terrorists Won't Win.

Since the BoR or Constitution doesn't specifically mention internet-based web-cams feeding to server farms administrated by political donors to the GOP, it's okay.

A more realistic reading of the BoR and Constitution would be, if the Fathers had conniptions over the idea of British soldiers being housed unwillingly by colonialists, they'd shat purple cows at having King George be able to watch us from his throne any time he choses.

Or, for that matter, having the President chosen by a Supreme Court, rather than counting the vote, even if it took two week longer than some would like.

Of course, these same arguments are never used to advance progressive ideals. They're only a tool of the Right.

Textualists and Strict Constructionalists are the same thing, really. A coin flipping from one hand to the other. The same as Creationists, only instead of trying to destroy our public schools, they're trying to destroy our country. But not before they get theirs first, 'natch.

@spinachdip: Well our country pretty much runs off the market. When times are good, times are GOOD. When times are bad (now) they are, eh, not so bad. Our bad times is still on par with Europe's good times.

The innovation means, between technology, medicine, engineering, etc, we are generally above average in progression. You know, South Korea has the best cell phones, but we do well. Germany has the master engineers, but we do okay. I'm saying, what we have works. And like all markets, we'll come back. And when we come back, the overall attitude of America will be back to the white picket fences. Unfortunately, Americans are fair weather fans. When the markets are having issues, a lot of people become anti-patriotic. And that only makes it worse.

@Trai_Dep: By the way, the security cameras example shows a misunderstanding of what the Constitution actually says. The Constitution actually says that the federal government is to have limited, enumerated powers. So, if anything, a textualist reading of the Constitution would tend to bias *against* allowing security cameras to be posted in one's home.

There is a lot of evidence that Jefferson's detestation of cities, the north, abolition, etc. was not out of a high ideal for the future of the country, but rather a wholly self-serving desire to maintain his way of life. If you are looking to Jefferson as a champion of the working man, of the common consumer, you are colossally uninformed.

"I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country."
- Thomas Jefferson

"So?"
- Dick Cheney

oh come on, things haven't changed that much!

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people (e.g., by pitting the cooperation-oriented political left against the competition-oriented political right), until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of the war."
- Abraham Lincoln

"Corporate entities are persons, under the law. They are separate persons from the very real human persons who own them and run them. We have the Supreme Court of the United States to thank for this perversion. Through corruption of our government and courts, corporations subverted their original intended purpose and acquired the legal status of "natural persons" while also preserving their limited-liability legal protections (which gives them more legal powers than citizens have). This subversion was institutionalized in an 1886 Supreme Court decision of which Justice William O. Douglas would later write, "There was no history, logic, or reason given to support that view." Thus corporations gained Bill of Rights protections and more, even before women and minorities had full protection."
- [Anonymous]

"Unless you become more watchful in your states and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges, you will in the end find that the most important powers of government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."
- Andrew Jackson

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, (i.e., the "business cycle") the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson

"Examining the organization and function of the Federal Reserve Banks and applying the relevant factors, we conclude that the Federal Reserve Banks are not Federal instrumentalities...but are independent and privately owned and controlled corporations...Federal Reserve Banks are listed neither as 'wholly owned' government corporations [under 31 U.S.C. Section 846] nor as 'mixed ownership' corporations [under 31 U.S.C. Section 856]...It is evident from the legislative history of the Federal Reserve Act that Congress did not intend to give the Federal government direction over the daily operation of the Reserve Banks...The fact that the Federal Reserve Board regulates the Reserve Banks does not make them Federal agencies under the Act...Unlike typical Federal agencies, each bank is empowered to hire and fire employees at will. Bank employees do not participate in the Civil Service Retirement System. They are covered by worker's compensation insurance, purchased by the Bank, rather than the Federal Employees Compensation Act. Employees traveling on Bank business are not subject to Federal travel regulations and do not receive government employee discounts on lodging and services..."
- Lewis vs. U.S., case #80-5905, 9th Circuit, June 24, 1982

Teddy Roosevelt where are you???

@modenastradale: So a textualist, of which Scalia is a leading proponent, feels that the Federal gov't has limited, enumerated powers?
Such as, if there's a Presidential election and an accurate vote of the state takes two weeks (keeping in mind that, during the Founder's time, months would pass before the outcome was known) to do a recount, the Supreme Court gets to flip a coin and call the election? Those limited, enumerated powers?! Y-e-a-h, I remember Scalia arguing strenuously the Textualist line during Bush vs Gore. What a principled jurist - indeed, the heir to Jefferson.

Guffaw. No, really - guffaw.

Again, there's a new term every few years to move the ball under a different cup once the illogic has been inevitably exposed. Creationism moves to ID which will move to something else. Same as this. It's always selective. It's always done with an argument that they know, if presented simply and without artifice, they'd lose.
It's an arrow the Right uses to befuddle the masses (including their own). To deceive and hoodwink. Just because they play it doesn't mean we're stupid enough to fall for it.

TJ said the same thing about religion and look where we are today with that, too.

@Trai_Dep:

Hey, sorry. I actually wrote an insanely long post to address your earlier points, and to clarify my position. Naturally, it never posted to the site.

I'll try to keep this brief:

My point was not that today's textualists are better than today's nontextualists. There are two ideas we're mixing up here: (1) the validity of an approach to statutory/constitutional interpretation, and (2) the actual intellectual integrity of its users.

Make no mistake, I believe that virtually no Supreme Court justice (liberal or conservative) appointed after FDR has much intellectual integrity. The justices are keenly aware of their politicized roles, and are too eager to indulge in twisted "analysis" to support whatever conclusion serves their own policy preferences. This, of course, they deny. More on that in a sec.

As for textualism itself, as a philosophy, I do think it's desirable. The reason for this is that textualism offers the potential for greater stability and predictability in the law, and it also helps to keep policymaking away from the unelected branch of government.

The basic tenet of textualism is that the text of a statute is the supreme authority on the statute's effect. A true textualist would not concern himself with what Congress "intended" (how can a body of 535 people even have a unified "intent"?), but rather, would be concerned with figuring out what the statute meant, as a piece of language, when it was enacted. Therefore, a true textualist's tools would be dictionaries, etymologies, and other linguistic resources.

Now, before you say that no statute can comprehensively specify all circumstances, let me just say I agree with you 100%. The thing is, statutes and the Constitution do provide pretty clear guidance in themselves, most of the time, and quite often even the most basic guidance has been transgressed by courts seeking to improve upon what they themselves could not have enacted.

The problem, of course, is that 9 justices with life tenure are woefully inappropriate people to be making pronouncements about what policies are good for the country. Unintended consequences abound.

I was saying earlier that allegedly "progressive" methods of judicial review can actually work *against* progressive policies. See for example the post above re: the Supreme Court's assertion that a corporation is a "person." Where the hell did that come from?

Or look at Proposition 215 in California, which legalized medicinal marijuana consumption. Legal in California, but still violating the federal Controlled Substances Act. Should Congress be able to tell California that it can't permit its ill citizens to grow pot in their homes? I believe a plain reading of the Constitution says "no." Congress does not have a general police power, and there is no enumerated power that covers the prohibition of personal marijuana consumption. Nevertheless, thanks to FDR-era "progress" such as the Wickard aggregation principle, the Supreme Court now claims that an individual growing a single plant in his home is engaging in "interstate commerce." That proposition is absurd! We're stuck with these transgressions of federal/state/individual autonomy because the Supreme Court, in its questionable wisdom, once decided that the Interstate Commerce Clause should encompass more than, uh, interstate commerce.

Again, let me reiterate that most justices have no honesty. Antonin Scalia is perhaps the prime example of a wickedly dishonest jurist. He knows well where his espoused judicial philosophy should lead him on the medical marijuana question. But how did he vote? In favor of the Bush Administration -- on Commerce Clause grounds! Imagine that!

@Trai_Dep: There's also one other thing I want to say.

I recognize that we owe a LOT of our social progress, especially civil rights, to court justices who were willing to transgress the clear text of statutes and the Constitution. Therefore, it's a sensitive issue to say that critical holdings such as Brown v. Board of Education, Roe v. Wade, Roemer v. Evans, etc. are defectively flawed. But they are. These decisions are not rooted in the Constitution; they are rooted in a vision of social change which undemocratic bodies imposed upon the country.

The problem with that kind of change is that it's very, very divisive because it has no authenticity in the democratic process. Roe v. Wade is the easiest example. Those who believe in abortion rights think Roe was a good decision because of its result. But from opponents' point of view, Roe is a case where 9 unelected justices told the country: "We don't think unborn infants are people, and we won't let the states democratically choose whether to allow them to be killed." Well, honestly, that's exactly what happened. The Court didn't rely on the Constitution at all; rather, that 1973 court started talking about trimesters, reviewing testimony about the development of fetuses, and arriving at conclusions about the stages of viability -- as if it were a legislature hashing over the pros and cons of proposed legislation!

In truth, had the clear mandate of the Constitution been followed, abortion would no longer be the hot-button issue that it is today. States where citizens believe that abortion is OK would have allowed it; states where citizens believe abortion is wrong would have disallowed it. It would have been just another policy choice made on a local level.

I'm very sympathetic to the need for social changes. In my lifetime, I hope to see same-sex couples having the universal right to marry. I hope to see transgender people having the right to determine their own lives and identities, without discrimination. I hope to see more equal access to opportunities for all people.

Nevertheless, I hope I see those things result from *legislation*, not court rulings. I want these changes to come from the people, not to be imposed upon the people. That's what democracy is all about.

True, and in the abstract, makes some sense. Although I'd argue that unless we want a Constitution/BoR that's 3,000 pages long, we need some philosophical tool to extend the intent of legislators' actions from 200 years ago to today. Privacy rights coming from a penumbra of amendments (quartering, the Fifth & search and seizure) is a prime example. The intent is clear, and simply because bewigged legislators didn't foresee telephones seems counter to what is still a revolutionary document.

Yet, in the real world, doctrines like Strict Constructionism, Textualism, etc., are used as a cudgel for pet causes by the Right wing, only to be put away when it comes to advancing the rights of common people. At best, they're an ivory tower topic, at worse an opportunistic tool to rationalize policies which, when presented without the bells and whistles, would lose the argument.

If they're not used by their backers to support and deny the policy objectives they favor (they're not), they're exposed for what they are: propaganda tools and rationalizations.

I see your points, though. An interesting conversation.

@notallcompaniesareevil:

Then do the right thing and present some supporting evidence, rather than call others "colossally misinformed."

@BigElectricCat: He was a slave-holding plantation owner, for one, who defended that way of life against an industrializing North that brought greater prosperity to the masses instead of employing them on a farm. The quote in the post was really designed to defend the monied Southern aristocrat and not the common man. There are a bunch of books I can recommend, though any focusing on the differences between Jefferson and Hamilton is a great place to start. Chernow's Hamilton biography is absolutely amazing. "What Kind of Nation" is also quality work highlighting Jefferson's outlook.
Jefferson clearly had a way with words, I can't deny that. But when one looks deeper to his actions, selecting quotes like the above and applying modern experience to interpret them is not genuine.
I didn't really mean to insult people (though I know it sounded like that), I just wished to highlight some subtleties that perhaps have been lost to history. Of course, highlight subtleties six screens down on a blog post is probably an uninformed venture itself! :-)

@BlackFlag55: TJ had an insatiable appetite for the finest things in life and ended up spending more than he made, ending his life more or less broke, owing a ton of money to the banks. Don't know if that invalidates his quote, but it does add some color. He had reason to be bitter toward banks.

I don't pretend to know everything about the man, and neither can I ever. I have, however, done a bit of reading on the time and the men of the Revolution, and find it utterly fascinating. The most amazing part about it is that it set in motion a nation that would turn itself into a beacon of liberty, which if often threatened (even today), endures. For that we should be eternally grateful, though to be thankful for something does not mean one need ignore all mistakes and imperfections.

@BlackFlag55: TJ had good reason to not like banks. He died deeply indebted due to his borrowings to fund his lifestyle (sound familiar to today's subprime "meltdown"?). Doesn't necessarily mean he was wrong to think what is portrayed in the quote, though it does provide some background.

Hey look at that! A double post! Oops. :-)