Gumption (7 page)

So, great, all these erudite honkies had gotten together and come up with a revolutionary new democratic method by which to govern a country, but the finer points needed intense scrutiny before the system could be deemed “ready for consumption.” In letters he exchanged with Thomas Jefferson, Madison was hell-bent that (a) the plan be ratified by the citizenry, (b) the people’s representation in Congress be based upon population, and (c) the power be divided between different branches of government; all of which turned out to be quite potent and effective ideas. I believe he also insisted that (d) upon voting, citizens would each receive three “smokeable papers for the rolling of tobacco products
only
,” which never really caught on except in the states of California, Washington, Colorado, Oregon, and Alaska. Along with Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and other, less famous white people, Madison fervently campaigned for the newborn Constitution to be approved. They energetically lobbied, visiting fellow congressmen and constituents in person, but the three also published a series of essays in support of the document’s ratification, which came to be known as the Federalist Papers.

Comprised of eighty-five (originally) anonymous essays, the Federalist Papers are considered to be the most influential factor in seeing the Constitution ratified into existence—the most influential, that is, after the three “factors” visible through Hamilton’s wide-open “barn door.” Madison contributed twenty-nine of these written pieces, which contain some of his most quotable sentiments, such as “Those miscreants who break breeze within a shuttered chamber, particularly if there be no draught of exhauste cleansing the vapours of the vestibule, I finde to be categorized amongst the most scurrilous and contumelious of the brute creatures with which Providence has graced this verdant paradise,” or “The clock reads but noon of the day, and yet I am but fatigued near to prostration. I would that our new Constitution might foment a climate of creativity by which our apothecaries may brew me a physicke in a tiny vial for to replenish mine corporeal form with energy for a surpluss of say, four, or even five, hours of time. A five-hour energy draught, if you will.”

Much less interesting, but perhaps more poignant to our discussion, is this portion from essay number fifty-one, Madison’s most famous quote: “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government, which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself.” Now, I know what you’re thinking: “No shit, James Madison.” But let me remind you that nobody had thought this crap up before. For spit balling, this was not a bad piece of work. I mean, sure, it seems that he was rather obsessed with angels,
creatures of fiction much the same as faeries and unicorns, but I think he kept it under control enough to focus on the task at hand. Let’s just be thankful the Constitution doesn’t require any wee folk or thrumpins to command seats of political office. That is, as far as we know. Who can tell what the bylaws of Freemasonry demand? Not me, you silly goose, for I am not a Freemason. Don’t be ridiculous. Ahem.

Thanks largely to these efforts by the Federalist Papers’ authors, the Constitution remained alive, but the work had only just begun for James Madison. Remember that the colonies had just won their freedom from the tyranny of the tea-sipping British monarchy, and so the citizens were very nervous about the amount of power that might be afforded to this new federal government, and with good reason. I mean, we were not about to start a country in which we called the trunk of a car “the boot,” for fuck’s sake. The Bill of Rights came about as a reassurance to the people, to assuage their fears of an overweening central power by asserting their individual rights in writing. James Madison, aka “the Mad Jam,” expressed his opinion of this first set of constitutional amendments to be a “nauseous project,” but he knew that he had to get it together if he wanted the Constitution to happen. One substantial public concern was that by naming certain explicit rights of citizens, other unlisted, or “crybaby,” rights might then be limited.

These great thinkers like the Mad Jam had to take an unimaginable amount of bellyaching onboard from all sides and then hold true to their astonishing foresight. They had the Magna Carta as a starting point, sure, and they knew a lot of cool vocabulary words, I get it, but they had to combine all this knowledge, stir in a large scoop of gumption, and thereby concoct the bubbling loaf of our legal
system, in which the people are represented directly in the legislation, and crimes would be prosecuted fairly in the judicial system. (I don’t know about you, but when I have to merely take down burrito orders for the eight of us at Offerman Woodshop, I grow befuddled and overwhelmed, and the
last
thing I can think about is making certain that everyone feels fairly represented. “Thomas, they were out of carne asada, so I got you a bag of tortilla chips and some tomatillo salsa. And half a churro. Get off my dick! Whattaya think this is, the Constitutional Convention? You don’t like churros? Why don’t you move to North Korea?!”) Therefore, the thought of equitably laying out a set of rules by which all Americans could be protected fairly equally beggars my feeble thinkin’ pan. Not only did the Mad Jam manage to accomplish this unappetizing task in the face of ambivalence and opposition; he did it all while running a campaign against his good pal James Monroe for Virginia’s seat in the first House of Representatives. In fact, it is widely held that Monroe would well have ridden his slight electoral edge to victory had it not been for the cold efficacy of Madison’s slanderous campaign slogan: “Mo’ Monroe, Mo’ Problems.”

A great deal of Sturm und Drang, not to mention blood, sweat, and phlegm, went into the initial sculpting of our governmental system. One of the most progressive aspects of the documentation detailing our newborn government, indeed possibly that decree’s most admirable attribute, is the fact that the framers of the Constitution made it fixable. To greatly simplify this notion: The men who wrote the Constitution included the special feature of
malleability.
If the pronouncements and laws of the American government didn’t altogether
work for the people, why then, the people could change those laws with the help of their representatives.

Of seventeen proposed amendments to the Constitution, ten were ultimately approved by Congress and the states. These amendments were written precautions on behalf of the citizenry to safeguard individual liberties and place specific indispensable limits on government power.

There has been a lot of talk in this chapter about the “rights” of “the people,” and I just want to take a moment to remind us that at this juncture, “the people” referred quite specifically to white people who happened to bear a penis and testicles, which excluded “people” like women and minorities. I’m of the opinion that the crafters of the Constitution were all too aware of the conundrum in which they found themselves. I again refer to the duplicitous task of setting down the “God-given rights” of the individual in an era when a great deal of the economy was largely dependent upon the use of slave labor. I should think that this particular moral pickle played an important part in the motion to make these documents “correctable.” I would liken the situation to the modern dilemma regarding our voracious consumption of fossil fuels. By now we as a society have grown painfully aware that we are damaging our land and water and air
irreparably
via the extraction of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas, as well as by the generous amounts of resultant waste products with which we pollute the planet, yet we continue to simply shrug, grin, and doggedly drive our monster trucks across the continent, whining to our mommies if we’re unable to view the latest Disney fare on a TV screen in the backseat.

We’ll discuss more of that later, but the new American United States found themselves in just such a state of denial. It had dawned on the more enlightened members of the early legislation that perhaps these Africans who had been captured and sold like mules, and who were now being employed similarly like beasts of the field, bore an awfully uncanny resemblance to human beings. Really, it began to seem like these creatures from Africa were like human beings in damn near every way except for their darker skin pigmentation. Unfortunately, the notion of including these two-legged “commodities” of the slave-labor system in the greater discussion of human rights was utterly unthinkable, since the larger part of the economy, particularly in the then most populous state, Virginia, was utterly reliant upon this labor force to keep their tobacco, cotton, and other crops profitable.

If Madison had possessed the foresight to suggest that black people be included in this discussion of inalienable rights, he would likely have been taken out back and shot, presumed rabid or dangerously daft. Therefore, since he couldn’t begin to address the massively looming issues of civil rights, he did the next best thing. He punted. Correctly predicting that our nation would grow and prosper at an astonishing rate, Madison and his collaborators equipped this new national owner’s manual with a correctability, as though to say, “I know there will be some problems that we couldn’t get to in this initial Constitution, impressive though it may be, and so among its attributes will be its ability to be
amended
as time and progress require.”

The Bill of Rights was an astonishing innovation for its time. The first ten amendments were an extremely effective security blanket that allowed the people to feel like their well-being was on the mind
of the administration, which was a great way to get the people to vote for said administration. Some of the amendments are rather drier than others, or outdated at the least, since they had to do with our nation being at war on our
home turf
, an important distinction considering that it’s been more than two hundred years since we have had to worry about “one if by land, two if by sea.”

So, for example, the Third Amendment, which reads, “No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law,” doesn’t really have any effect on us nor will it for the foreseeable future, barring some cataclysmic reversal of planetary fortunes.

On the other hand, there are some amendments in that original ten that are getting a great deal of attention. Let’s roll through a few of these as a slight refresher, shall we? If you’re anything like me, it may have been a while since you actually considered the letter of the law as opposed to whatever it is your favorite pundit has been spouting.

The First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Oh, hello. I believe the first part of this amendment refers to a notion I applaud loudly, the separation of church and state. Practice the religion of your choice, as you’re free to do, and keep it out of the public arena. It seems worth remarking upon that this was the very first protection Madison awarded us American citizens. PS: Those of you trying to recruit people to your religion may not be violating the
actual written law, but you’re certainly pissing all over the laws of common decency. Jesus would hang his beautiful Nubian head in shame.

The second section, the one making mention of “freedom of speech,” has been of particular benefit in my life. For example, I am free to pen the sentence “Jesus would hang his beautiful Nubian head in shame” without fear of imprisonment, lynching, or, in the case of the Spanish Inquisition, being subjected to the Judas Chair, the Spanish Donkey, or the Crocodile Shears, all of which I would recommend you do not look up if you care to retain your lunch. These monstrous torture devices (in the name of the greater glory of the Catholic Church, no less) were once all the rage for punishing a blasphemer like myself, but not in America, you hypocritical sons of bitches. Thanks to our Founding Fathers, we can finally speak the truth without fear of chastisement on the part of our government. Generally speaking, that is. There have been periods in our history when subjects like communism, racial integration, Dixie Chicks lyrics, or most recently terrorist activities/Muslim leanings could land you in some literal hot water(boarding). Excepting those indiscretions or lapses in constitutional policy (whoopsie!), we are free to speak or print the truth and also to speak or print utter bullshit, and it’s up to the individual listener/reader to decide what he or she will swallow. Only in such a climate can free ideas be aired and exchanged, making the slow evolution of decency in our country possible.

The Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” Okay. This one has proven to be a
regular can of worms. Let’s just break it down. I think guns are an awfully nifty piece of engineering, and I have seen a great many examples of beautiful handwork in both the metal and wood surfaces on firearms of all sorts. Further, I support the wild-game hunter much as I support the fisherman (or -woman). Beyond that use, I’m afraid the angry defenders of this amendment lose me.

The preface to the part about “to keep and bear arms” makes reference to “a well-regulated militia” as the prerequisite to the second part. In other words, our civilians, as members of the militia who had been fiercely and proudly defending our country from the British and the French, as well as the indigenous peoples from whom we had just brutally stolen “our” land, should keep their black-powder weapons at the ready, in case we need to form up the militia once again, should we be invaded by such an enemy. Unfortunately for the gun enthusiasts, this amendment is simply rendered moot by two undeniable factors. It was written in a time when we (a) were potentially in danger of a foreign military invasion and (b) were wielding muzzle-loading guns that an expert could fire perhaps five times a minute if he or she was very nimble. In other words, this amendment was penned when the revolver was still several decades away from ready availability, let alone the massacre machine that is the automatic weapon. The rather loud machismo of the NRA (methinks the lady doth protest too much?) on the topic of assault weapons seems like yet another antiquated, fear-based position that is being slowly eroded by a more genteel attitude of decency and compassion. It’s worth noting that I don’t see a lot of people who aren’t white hollering about needing their guns to protect themselves. Which brings me to a theory.