A Message to Garcia

As both the author and the copyright attached to this masterpiece have been long expired, I am privileged to present this here.

I read this about every two or three years now.  I once read it two or three times every year.  I have caused hundreds of others to read it, including my own children.  It only takes a few minutes to complete and then you will want to share it.

It is a timeless piece but especially timely for the present generation.

Enjoy!

"A Message To Garcia"

by Elbert Hubbard 1899

In all this Cuban business there is one man stands out on the horizon of my memory like Mars at perihelion.

When war broke out between Spain and the United States it was very necessary to communicate quickly with the leader of the Insurgents. Garcia was somewhere in the mountain vastness of Cuba - no one knew where. No mail nor telegraph message could reach him. The President must secure his cooperation, and quickly. What to do!

Some one said to the President, "There's a fellow by the name of Rowan will find Garcia for you, if anybody can."

Rowan was sent for and given a letter to be delivered to Garcia. How "the fellow by the name of Rowan" took the letter, sealed it up in an oil-skin pouch, strapped it over his heart, in four days landed by night off the coast of Cuba from an open boat, disappeared into the jungle, and in three weeks came out on the other side of the Island, having traversed a hostile country on foot, and delivered his letter to Garcia - are things I have no special desire now to tell in detail. The point that I wish to make is this: McKinley gave Rowan a letter to be delivered to Garcia; Rowan took the letter and did not ask, "Where is he at?"

By the Eternal! there is a man whose form should be cast in deathless bronze and the statue placed in every college of the land. It is not book-learning young men need, nor instruction about this and that, but a stiffening of the vertebrae which will cause them to be loyal to a trust, to act promptly, concentrate their energies: do the thing - "Carry a message to Garcia!"

General Garcia is dead now, but there are other Garcias. No man who has endeavored to carry out an enterprise where many hands were needed, but has been well-nigh appalled at times by the imbecility of the average man - the inability or unwillingness to concentrate on a thing and do it.

Slipshod assistance, foolish inattention, dowdy indifference, and half-hearted work seem the rule; and no man succeeds, unless by hook or crook or threat he forces or bribes other men to assist him; or mayhap, God in His goodness performs a miracle, and sends him an Angel of Light for an assistant.

You, reader, put this matter to a test: You are sitting now in your office - six clerks are within call. Summon any one and make this request: "Please look in the encyclopedia and make a brief memorandum for me concerning the life of Correggio." Will the clerk quietly say, "Yes, sir," and go do the task?

On your life, he will not. He will look at you out of a fishy eye and ask one or more of the following questions: Who was he? Which encyclopedia? Where is the encyclopedia? Was I hired for that? Don't you mean Bismarck? What's the matter with Charlie doing it? Is he dead? Is there any hurry? Sha'n't I bring you the book and let you look it up yourself? What do you want to know for?

And I will lay you ten to one that after you have answered the questions, and explained how to find the information, and why you want it, the clerk will go off and get one of the other clerks to help him try to find Garcia - and then come back and tell you there is no such man. Of course I may lose my bet, but according to the Law of Average, I will not.

Now, if you are wise, you will not bother to explain to your "assistant" that Correggio is indexed under the C's, not in the K's, but you will smile very sweetly and say, "Never mind," and go look it up yourself. And this incapacity for independent action, this moral stupidity, this infirmity of the will, this unwillingness to cheerfully catch hold and lift -these are the things that put pure Socialism so far into the future.

If men will not act for themselves, what will they do when the benefit oftheir effort is for all?

A first-mate with knotted club seems necessary; and the dread of getting "the bounce" Saturday night holds many a worker to his place. Advertise for a stenographer, and nine out of ten who apply can neither spell nor punctuate - and do not think it necessary to.

Can such a one write a letter to Garcia?

"You see that bookkeeper," said the foreman to me in a large factory. "Yes, what about him?" "Well he's a fine accountant, but if I'd send him up town on an errand, he might accomplish the errand all right, and on the other hand, might stop at four saloons on the way, and when he got to Main Street would forget what he had been sent for." Can such a man be entrusted to carry a message to Garcia?

"We have recently been hearing much maudlin sympathy expressed for the downtrodden denizens of the sweat-shop" and the "homeless wanderer searching for honest employment", "and with it all often go many hard words for the men in power".

Nothing is said about the employer who grows old before his time in a vain attempt to get frowsy ne'er-do-wells to do intelligent work; and his long, patient striving after "help" that does nothing but loaf when his back is turned.

In every store and factory there is a constant weeding-out process going on. The employer is constantly sending away "help" that have shown their incapacity to further the interests of the business, and others are being taken on. No matter how good times are, this sorting continues: only, if times are hard and work is scarce, the sorting is done finer - but out and forever out the incompetent and unworthy go. It is the survival of the fittest. Self-interest prompts every employer to keep the best - those who can carry a message to Garcia.

I know one man of really brilliant parts who has not the ability to manage a business of his own, and yet who is absolutely worthless to any one else, because he carries with him constantly the insane suspicion that his employer is oppressing, or intending to oppress, him. He cannot give orders; and he will not receive them. Should a message be given him to take to Garcia, his answer would probably be, "Take it yourself!"

Tonight this man walks the streets looking for work, the wind whistling through his threadbare coat. No one who knows him dare employ him, for he is a regular firebrand of discontent. He is impervious to reason, and the only thing that can impress him is the toe of a thick-soled Number Nine boot.

Of course I know that one so morally deformed is no less to be pitied than a physical cripple; but in our pitying, let us drop a tear, too, for the men who are striving to carry on a great enterprise, whose working hours are not limited by the whistle, and whose hair is fast turning white through the struggle to hold in line dowdy indifference, slipshod imbecility, and the heartless ingratitude which, but for their enterprise, would be both hungry and homeless.

Have I put the matter too strongly? Possibly I have; but when all the world has gone a-slumming I wish to speak a word of sympathy for the man who succeeds - the man who, against great odds, has directed the efforts of others, and having succeeded, finds there's nothing in it: nothing but bare board and clothes. I have carried a dinner pail and worked for day's wages, and I have also been an employer of labor, and I know there is something to be said on both sides. There is no excellence, per se, in poverty; rags are no recommendation; and all employers are not rapacious and high-handed, any more than all poor men are virtuous. My heart goes out to the man who does his work when the "boss" is away, as well as when he is at home. And the man who, when given a letter for Garcia, quietly takes the missive, without asking any idiotic questions, and with no lurking intention of chucking it into the nearest sewer, or of doing aught else but deliver it, never gets "laid off" nor has to go on a strike for higher wages.

Civilization is one long anxious search for just such individuals.

Anything such a man asks shall be granted. He is wanted in every city, town and village - in every office, shop, store and factory. The world cries out for such: he is needed and needed badly - the man who can "Carry a Message to Garcia."

So who will send a letter to Garcia?

Conspiracy Theory

It is the 3rd of November 2010 and I don’t know anyone who voted for Obama in 2008.  Seriously, I don’t know a single person who voted for him.  When I think back on it, I don’t know anyone that voted for Bill Clinton in 1992 or 1996 either.  I know some people who voted for him for governor, but not for president.

Put aside your partisan politics for a moment and consider this.  Most people in the United States do not remember who they voted for in the last Presidential Election.  I don't remember and I suspect that you don't either.  So you think I'm nuts do you?  Well that may be true, but I'm certain of my facts.

 I also have it on good authority that fewer than 600 people voted for Bill Clinton in 1992, and even with his mandate in 1996, there were fewer than 538 that voted for him that year.  I'm not getting these figures from some straw poll I conducted in downtown Burns Flat, America--though that is both the cultural and political center of this great republic (OK, that last part is only opinion, but the rest of this article is fact).  Being the only Republican from a family of Democrats, I often am not taken seriously when I tell them that I have never met anyone that voted for Clinton.  Still don't believe me?  So you want answers?  You want the truth?  You can't handle the truth.  In 1992, only 370 people voted for Clinton.  In 1996, only 379 people voted for him, but sure enough that's him in the oval office. 

 Want to know more?  The real election for president didn't occur until December in 1992 and in 1996.  We have narrowed it down to 538 people that could have voted for Clinton in 1996--and you thought we conducted elections by secret ballot.  Actually, the people that elected our current president even signed their names to their ballot and your government knows who they are.    You say that 538 number sounds familiar, but you can't quite place it.  It's got nothing to do with the grassy knoll or the number of times that your Microsoft operated computer shuts down each day due to an illegal operation.  That's right it's the total number of Senators and Representatives in the United States Congress, but they don't elect the president.  In fact, they are not even permitted to vote for the president.   So is this coincidence or conspiracy? 

 Actually, it's neither.  It's Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution of the United States of America that provides for the election of a United States President.  "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."  Yes our president is elected by people we call electors.  When you vote in a presidential election, you are voting for electors.  We call this group of people the Electoral College.  This is a special year in our country's constitutional process.  We get to experience both a census and a presidential election.  By mid September, when your television is inundated with political commercials and commentaries, you'll probably say "enough with the experience."  But with Independence Day still on our minds, this might just be a good time to find a copy of our Constitution and refresh our memories on how we elect a president.

 I'll close with a special warning to my Republican brethren.  The fox is in the henhouse.  Guess who is in charge of counting the votes for the 2000 Presidential Election?  You guessed it--Al Gore.  That Buddhist Temple stuff is small potatoes compared to this.  Speaking of potatoes, wasn't it Dan Quale that was in charge of counting the votes for president in 1992?  I knew we should have followed up after that spelling thing…

This was a piece first published in conjunction with the 2000 election.  I occasionally resurrect it during November. 

Paradox of Power

Paradox of Power

First Published 31 October 2000

Here's an issue on which most candidates have considerably different opinions, but soften their view points on the campaign trail so as not to alienate a segment of voters.  That issue is gun control.  I believe that gun control is fundamentally wrong.

Some readers will never make it to this paragraph after my last statement.  That same group may believe that there is only a First Amendment in the Bill of Rights.  There are ten and we can ignore none of them without eroding them all.  If we want gun control, then we need to change the Constitution not ignore it.

The Second Amendment, like the others in the Bill of Rights, was written in the context of preventing tyranny.  The founding fathers could not have envisioned a United States that grew to be the most powerful nation in the world.  They did envision a country that preserved individual freedom for each successive generation.  Their greatest perceived threat came from the government which they were creating--that it could become its own tyranny.  Federal power was distributed among three branches of government and the several states; while rights were retained by the people.  This is not a model for efficiency, but for preservation.  Our model of government preserved individual rights that permitted its citizens to come to its defense against a foreign adversary or to overthrow its own tyranny.   The Second Amendment is a paradox rooted in a country born out of revolution. 

How can I defend this position when violent acts have crept into our schools, communities, and way of life?  Every Officer of the United States takes an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States.  That most fundamental document preserves the right of the people to keep and bear arms.  It is used in the context of a well regulated militia, but the right is reserved to the people.   Times and technology have changed the price we pay for this right.  There was always a price, but now it appears to be much higher with the ubiquitous availability of semiautomatic and automatic weapons.  The weapons themselves are not responsible for violent crime, but the lethality of today's weapons makes each act more atrocious.  The real question before the American people--one that should have been placed bluntly before our presidential candidates--is whether or not we need to change the Second Amendment. 

Some would argue that the NRA lobby is so strong that such a change is not possible.  That may or may not have merit; however, they should not be the strongest lobby against change.  The ACLU should be prime contender in such a brokered battle.  The Second Amendment is the only place where the people themselves are empowered to preserve the security of a free state, and embodies the ultimate civil liberty.  Some would argue that tyranny is no longer a threat and that the political power of our federal government has been kept in check.  If this is your position, consider where the power to declare war resides--in the Congress.  How then did we get involved in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War.  Those that would classify these as police actions only hide the truth in Orwellian terminology.  These were wars.  The executive branch usurped power from the legislative branch and the people of this country didn't have a say in the matter.  The Congress later recovered part of its power via the War Powers Act, but how binding is such an ordinary law when ignoring the supreme law of the land created this situation.  The founding fathers recognized that power abhors a vacuum.  The Constitution is our foremost protection against the consolidation of power by a single group or individual.

But surely we must make an exception in the case of assault weapons--the founding fathers could not have envisioned such lethality in a domestic setting.  No such exception can be made.  The founding fathers could not have envisioned nationally syndicated newspapers either, but none of us would stand for regulating the USA Today, New York Times, or the Washington Post because they have become too influential.    We tolerate unprofessional journalists because we know that the ethical ones are essential to a free state.  Every individual freedom comes at a price.

To understand the paradox of the Second Amendment, we must look at the powers vested in Congress, specifically those enumerated in Article 1, Section 8.  Congress is empowered to call forth the Militia to suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.  How can the same Constitution preserve the right of the individual to keep and bear arms while authorizing the Congress to suppress insurrection?  The sanity in this is that it is the militia that is called forth to suppress insurrection, not the Armed Forces of the United States, which are addressed separately in this same section.  It is the part time soldier--the militiaman-- that is vested with the responsibility to suppress an uprising or to join it if such a cause is to overthrow tyranny.  

Gun control lobbyists have clouded the issue by focusing on handguns and appeasing the NRA that none of their proposed legislation will impact the rights of hunters.  Hunters don't have any constitutional rights--the people do--regardless of whether they are outdoorsman or not.  Both the NRA and their adversaries are evading the constitutional issue.  The Second Amendment is designed to protect us against all enemies, including the accumulation of tyrannical power by our own government.  This has created problems in that some extremist groups within our own country have become well armed.  So long as these groups do not represent the values of our people, they will be a threat to our society.  Should the individual liberties of this country be usurped by our government, such groups become the mainstream of liberty.   It is the nature of our republic, that our domestic tranquility is afloat on a sea that separates revolution and tyranny.

I don't believe we are at either extreme today.  Our biggest threat to our liberty is not that our government will be replaced via a Coup d'etat, but that we will slowly erode the Constitution by ignoring it.  If you don't believe this is possible, consider the fact that George Washington had to convince the founding fathers that he should not be king.  Having just defeated a monarchy in forming our country, our founders considered establishing one of our own.  Consider the illegal acts of two presidents, Nixon and Clinton.  Nixon resigned for the good of the country.  Clinton was impeached and evaded conviction not because he was innocent, but because he was popular and fought to retain power.  Our Constitution recognized that power does indeed corrupt and it adequately distributed that power to avoid tyranny.   The Constitution cannot contend with emotion, popularity, and impulse unless we honor it above capricious causes.  We must aggressively fight crime and violence, especially in our schools.  These solutions will come slowly and cannot be legislated.  They must come from teaching the value of human life in our homes, schools, and churches. 

The Constitution also provides a mechanism to deal with the needs of a changing society.  The fifth article describes the constitutional process for changing our most fundamental document.  It's a tough process.  Obtaining a two-thirds majority in both houses of the Congress or three-fourths majority in a convention of the states requires the resolve of a nation.  If we truly have a need to regulate guns in today's society, we need to amend the Constitution.  Before we go down this road, we must carefully weigh what we are willing to give up in the way of liberty. 

Suggested by the author:

• Bret Favre retires. Pete Rose voted into Hall of Fame. OK SQ's are no brainers
• SQ 754: The amendment that may never be repealed if passed?
• SQ 754: An editorial
• SQ 744 Issue by Issue: What about Sovereignty?

Are we going to war in Libya?

Is the talk of the day really about attacking Libya?

It seems to be.

The thinking is that if the U.S. were to impose or lead a coalition to impose a no-fly zone in the country ruled with an iron hand by Moammar Gadhafi for decades, it must first be preceded by an air campaign to knock out command and control capability and the ability to retaliate against enforcers of the no-fly zone.  To simply attempt to impose a no-fly zone without this preparatory step is to offer the Libyan Air Force a chance to engage in a more even fight.

Where did these no-fly zone requests come from?

Somewhat anonymous requests offered up by random, or perhaps more accurately by media hungry individuals among the rebels, seem to be generating action in our nation’s capital.

But to what extreme is the United States willing to respond?

To whom would we be responding?

What criteria do we have to make this decision?

Would we not be initiating an act of war that is not directly tied to a recent provocation?  In the 1980’s I was aboard the USS Saipan as we joined other US warships to cross the line of death in the Gulf of Sidra and thumb our collective noses at Gadhafi in hopes of provoking him into attacking any part of the US Fleet just so we would have a good reason to wipe his administration off the map.  But what are we responding to in 2011?

Granted, the world would probably be a better place without mush-for-brains Gadhafi in it.  Yes, in another context, I would use a more descriptive term than mush, but do we once again put our troops in harm’s way to remove this idiot?

What is in our national interest?  Today, that phrase is sometimes interchangeable with the word oil.  The interesting thing is that many don’t even bat an eye anymore that we would spill American blood to stabilize the price at the pump.

For over sixty years, we have wrestled with the question:  Are we the world’s policemen?

We have yet to develop a coherent policy to guide us through this recurring quagmire.  When do we exert the military might of this once peaceful nation and when do we let things run their course?

If American armed forces are called, they will respond with professionalism and selflessness.  Every U.S. commander is ready to lead his unit into battle but is also prayerful that those who issue the call to arms are judicious with our most precious military asset—our service men and women.  We as the American Electorate need to be more vocal with our leaders as to when we are willing to spill the blood of these men and women.

This is a call for our land of the free and home of the brave to pause, pray, and listen to the Almighty before we jump in just because we can.

It may be the right thing to do.  It may be the humanitarian thing to do.  It may be best for our national interest, but let’s wrestle with that question before we commit to battle.

Battlefield orders for Christians...

Death of a newspaper?

The chain attached to nothing but concrete is a reminder of a day when there was a state-wide print version of the newspaper.  The Oklahoman  simply cannot make that claim any more.

Is this a nation-wide trend or just the destiny of this one paper?

The Oklahoman started making  drastic cuts in 2008.  This impacted their print product, personnel, and penetration area.  The paper also started its ventures into understanding the online dynamic, which up to that point had only been a pedestrian attempt to squeeze a print model into ones and zeros.

Back to the question of trend.  The Wall Street Journal  was the only paper of note in the last year to post any growth.  All others continue with the downward trend.  The Oklahoman saw the last of its growth in 2007.

Everything from IPads to IPods, e-zines and blogs, to the emergence of local expert and content rich Examiner.com is cutting into circulation at all papers.  The Oklahoman continues to be plagued with circulation issues many of which result in customer’s papers not being delivered.  Expecting either explanation or initiative on the part of OPUBCO usually gives way to simply stopping for bad service.

What does this mean for western Oklahoma?

For one thing, the incentive to move towards online news, coupons, advice, and other products and services that newspapers once offered with some monopoly is alive and working in rural parts of the state.

For another, this is a time to experiment in both the print and online worlds.  The reduced news stand availability and unreliable home delivery system may entice some to simply abandon the print version of the newspaper altogether.

For others, they will hold on to the print version for as long as it is offered.  There is still something to getting a little newsprint on your fingers as your greet the day.

The one saving grace of the print version may have now gone by the wayside with the advent of the IPad and its emerging competitors.  Now you can take the electronic paper to the can with you.

For more about newspapers:

Audit Bureau of Circulations

Other thoughts on The Oklahoman.

Why Separation of Powers is Not Distinct

The 2000 election prompted a piece of discourse that explained our concept of fairness—or equity—within our system of government.  It was a time when people wanted to discount the Electoral College, a time when the presidency of this nation was bounced around in the Florida and in Federal Courts, and ultimately decided in the Supreme Court of the United States.

The following piece addresses the roots of our current system not with regard as to why we have separation of powers, but as to why they are not distinct.

Why Separation of Powers is Not Distinct

If you thought that the last time you would have to hear the term separation of powers was in your high school civics class, then the 2000 presidential election certainly spoiled that plan.  While the emotional argument in Florida is to count every vote; the real issue at stake is the distribution of power in the entities of our American government.  Our system of government sets up three ongoing battles for domestic power.  The first revolves around those powers or rights reserved to individuals and those relinquished to various levels of the government.  Next, the Constitution divides powers between the federal government and the several states.  Finally, power is distributed among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.  This distribution is nearly mirrored at the federal and state levels.  It is this last distribution of power which is the source of most conflict.

 Our constitution begins with a noble preamble that enumerates the general scope of our government.  Unfortunately, it jumps directly from the purpose to Articles I, II, and III which establish the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches without an overall  concept of operations.  These articles empower and limit but do not generally define how conflicts between branches will be resolved.  There are some exceptions, specifically enacting legislation, filling vacancies, and impeachment; but as a whole the constitution focuses on three separate entities with little attention paid to boundaries and interaction.  This does not diminish the value of what the founding fathers provided us.  Our Constitution has served us well for 224 years with only infrequent modification, but to truly understand it, we must examine a piece of history that goes beyond our shores

 Our founding fathers were less focused on specific boundaries for each of the branches than they were with providing a lasting foundation that separated them.  They dealt first hand with a monarchy that had gradually and begrudgingly divested itself of total sovereignty.  The Magna Charta was not a government reinvented from the ground up, but a milestone in power wrestled from a monarch.  While the most visible struggle in British Constitutional History is arguably that between the monarch and the parliament; perhaps the most applicable to our government is that of the Chancellor and his equitable powers. 

 About the same time that America was discovered and colonization began, England faced mounting problems with its laws.  Statutory law was in its infancy and common law was the preponderance of the judicial foundation.  Unfortunately, common law did not provide remedies in many situations, most of them arising out of property arrangements.  Such remedies could only be obtained from the monarch, or his chief minister--the chancellor.  The chancellor was a unique individual.  He governed in the king's council, had some jurisdiction over the common law courts, and represented the king's conscience.  He could provide extraordinary relief that the courts could not.  He could provide equity.  Equity in its broadest sense denotes the spirit of fairness and justness.  It is justice ascertained by natural reason or ethical insight but independent of the formulated body of the law.

 The chancellor was often a bishop, well schooled in Roman and Canon law.  When he found nothing in the common law, he relied upon his ecclesiastic training to provide a remedy.  In the British power struggle, the chancellor was perceived as a threat to both parliament and the common law courts.  While the chancellor exercised both legislative and judicial authority, he was primarily an extension of the monarch--the executive.  As the British system evolved, the equitable powers of the chancellor became less intrusive to the other branches of government through the adoption of equitable principles.  Eventually, precedent carried greater weight than individual discretion.  This self regulation of the chancery preserved its existence.

 When the Constitution of the United States was formulated, equitable power was placed exclusively in the judiciary.  What had crossed functional areas in the British system was now reposed in a single branch.  What had originally been executive power restrained by the parliament was now wholly vested in one branch of our government.  Such a history does not make for a restrained court system.  The equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor allowed him to step across functional boundaries to provide remedies.  Even though equity has become much more formalized and governed to a very significant degree by precedent, its roots belie its restriction to a single branch.  Equity is the province of the sovereign and resists division.

 I advocate judicial restraint and recognize that such a conservative approach will sometimes create selective injustices.  That is, the court system will not always be able to provide a remedy.  Sometimes, the judiciary must simply wait for the legislature to create a remedy in law.  My position is backed by a strict interpretation of the Constitution.  Some courts are more active and generally are classified as liberal or activist.  They always seek to find a remedy.  Their legitimacy is not found in the Constitution but in the history of common law and the equitable jurisdiction of the chancellor.  In a government where power is consolidated in a monarch or dictator, there is no conflict.  In a government that has separated basic government functions to prevent tyranny, conflict is inherent in the organization and aggravated by assigning powers not divisible by three to a single branch.

 I can offer no alternative without increasing the risk of excessive power consolidated in the executive branch or diluting the power of each branch to impotence.  Equitable power is the free safety of football or the rover in softball.  It instinctively moves to fill a void in power.  It is generally constrained to follow precedent but not restrained by it when new remedies are required.  It can serve as the oil that lubricates the wheels of our government or it can grind that same government to a halt to effect an individual remedy.  It provides comfort that imperfections will be overcome and anxiety over what those unknown remedies will be.  Equity recognizes the divisions of our governmental system but knows no timidity when testing their boundaries.  While our founding fathers greatest fear was that a government of the people would surrender their plenary power to a power hungry executive; it is the tool of the monarch's first minister--the equitable power of the chancellor--that is the wild card in our system of government.  That power is vested in the judiciary, but by its very nature must venture elsewhere.

 With such a natural disposition to cross functional boundaries, why would I advocate restraint in a judiciary vested with equitable powers?    The very nature of equitable power in 14th century Britain was nearly its undoing.  The equitable power of the chancellor threatened both parliament and common law courts, but instead of an overt power struggle, equity limits were subtly restrained.  Such restraint was not by the parliament or the courts but by the nature of the equitable power itself.  It offered remedies not elsewhere available and the chancellor's court was quickly overwhelmed.  Remedies that supplanted other alternatives available from the government were self defeating.  The most viable solution was self restraint.  Rigidity and precedent became the rule and new remedies in equity were reserved for the truly extraordinary case.

Equitable power became formalized and survived the power struggles of our ancestors.  While the philosophical composition of any court may cause it to test the boundaries of power; it is equity that invites a judicial body to boldly journey into the roles of legislator and executive.    Those exercising such equitable power know that every such venture comes with the concomitant that it may be the very event that topples the delicate balance of separated powers.  Such power must be wielded with exceptional restraint.

A Good Read

I re-read an old favorite of mine just because I picked it up again.  I guess you would call it a political thriller, though some might not find it so exciting.  It doesn't have the high tech warfare you might find in a Tom Clancy novel, but it is set forth in a time like our own when the political situation is somewhat tenuous.  There has been significant battle and bloodshed to this point, but the real struggle is more Machiavellian in nature.  I doubt that you will see this one in movie form.  Harrison Ford, Brad Pitt, and Demi Moore are not knocking at the door for lead roles.  This work would just be too tough to cast.   While the power struggle remains the same, the cast involved in that struggle changes too frequently to accommodate Hollywood egos and budgets.   This is one of those classics where the struggle itself is much greater than any single protagonist or villain.  It has a certain Shakespearean allure not only because of the intricacies of the power struggle, but because like the English Playwright's works, there is some question as to whether or not this one has a single author.

A good work always has conflict.  A great work intricately ties in not only a struggle between good and evil, but struggles among noble causes as well.  Quests for perfection, justice, or tranquility cause the reader to yearn for the next line or next page with the same or even greater anxiousness contained in a well spun mystery.  Shared existential risk balanced against noble ideas such as protecting the welfare of others--even the liberty of another generation--increases the drama of each successive word.  You won't buy the Cliff's Notes for this one.  The commentaries and reviews far exceed the length of the work itself.  You will, however, remember a line or two from this one, whether you have read it or not.  It begins, "We The People…"

Yes, this political thriller is the Constitution of the United States of America.  It is about a struggle for power, and like most political thrillers, that struggle is established by the authors themselves.  The authors recognized that power was indeed a corrupting force.  Power vested in a single man or woman could be used to promote domestic tranquility, or just as capriciously could be used to enslave the governed.  In this good versus evil genre, the authors knew that no single individual could overcome the temptations of power.  Their noble causes of domestic tranquility, common defense, and securing the blessing of liberty required that power not be permitted to consolidate in a single individual.  They set up accommodations for continued power struggles and inefficiency and by so doing offered no lodging for tyranny.

Our republic is based upon democratic premises tempered with state's rights.  The safeguards of the Constitution are vested in separation of powers not only at the federal level, but between the federal government and the states, with still more rights or liberties reserved directly to the people.  The more perfect union is a union of separate states.  The Electoral College may appear to be archaic, but it is representative of the distributive nature of power allocation in our system.  The Constitution is not a model designed for efficiency.  Instead, it is designed for the preservation of representative government.

The greatest fear of the founding fathers was tyranny.  That tyranny could come in the form of a popular president unwilling to relinquish his office or an Oliver Cromwell emerging from the legislature.  It could also come from the tyranny of mob rule.  We would like to think that we have outgrown the need for the protection from the tyranny of mob rule.  Before we acclaim ourselves so enlightened, we should first take stock of our emotional nature.  The single greatest threat to our nation is our intolerance of its inefficiency and imperfections.  Our emotional outcry for efficiency and certainty is an offer to have tyranny as our guest.  Before we decide that we have reached the point where we need to reinvent the whole government (yes, the founding fathers even had the sagacity to see that.  Read the Second Amendment), we should take the time to see why this one works the way it does.   If nothing else comes of accepting my invitation to this small investment of time, it should at least move the Constitution to the best seller list.  It's a good read. 

Read this on Examiner