What took place at the NY Jewish Comics Experience

The JTA/New York Jewish Week covered the new Jewish Comics Experience convention at Manhattan's Jewish History Center:

More than 400 comic book lovers flocked to Manhattan’s Center for Jewish History on Sunday for the first-ever Jewish Comics Experience, a pop culture convention that was billed as the “ultimate comics and pop culture event.”

Some 35 comics creators participated in the inaugural JewCE, including “Sin City” creator Frank Miller and underground comics legend Barbara “Willy” Mendes. Others participating were artists who specialize in depicting Torah stories, creators of Jewish superheroes, autobiographical writers who just happen to be Jewish and non-Jewish authors and artists who create Jewish content.

Seeing that Miller attended this convention, it raises some important and relevant queries: does this mean he's willing to own and defend Holy Terror once again, recalling how 5 years ago, he kowtowed to the far-left by not only expressing regret for conceiving Holy Terror in the first place, he even apologized for condemning the Occupy movement, and added insult to injury by attacking Donald Trump, all in the pages of a paper as anti-Israel as the UK Guardian. And despite the incredibly stupid apology, he was still disinvited from a British convention. It remains to be seen if he's sorry he acted so stupidly now. Otherwise, what's the use of his attending this convention? Lack of courage is exactly what leads to all these tragedies, including 9-11, and even the terrorist attacks in France back in 2015. Similarly, if the convention doesn't have the courage to raise the issue of Islamofascism itself, that'll be a serious weakness.

“It’s high time that Jewish creators are recognized for their contribution to comic culture, a culture that was for the most part created by Jewish people,” JewCE co-founder Fabrice Sapolsky told the New York Jewish Week.

Though the event was planned long before Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel and the subsequent war, the continued violence in the Middle East and its reverberating effects was resonant across the convention. In myriad panel conversations and in one-on-one discussions, the situation in Israel, increased antisemitism across the globe and the acute need for Jewish joy were frequent themes. For many creators and attendees, “showing up” and supporting the Jewish community was at the top of mind, while others noted the camaraderie among individuals who all shared a a love of Jewish culture.

According to Miriam Mora, the co-founder of JewCE and the director of programming at the Center for Jewish History, the difficult moment made a Jewish comic convention more relevant than ever. “Comics are worth paying attention to because there’s no better way to lift up our community and to fight antisemitism than to educate people about Jewish contributions, Jewish identities, Jewish stories than to celebrate them,” she said.

Indie “comix” icon Mendes, best known for the classic comic “It Ain’t Me, Babe,” agreed. “We just need people to know how wonderful we are because there’s a lot of propaganda out there that we’re terrible,” she told the New York Jewish Week. “We need to counteract that with proof that Jews are wonderful, and that’s what this is all about — and that’s why I’m so happy to be part of the convention.”

On this, those attending did the right thing. After such a horrifying bloodbath that the Hamas jihadists committed, it's vital to convey a message of solidarity with the Jewish people, and uphold the memories of famous creators like Siegel/Shuster/Lee/Kirby. However, this convention, unfortunately, has traces of PC to be found in the coverage, if anything:

The history of Jews and comics is a long and rich one, beginning with the earliest comic book creators — nearly all Jews — to the continued presence of Jewish stories in both popular comics and more esoteric ones. For example, Marvel briefly had a Jewish Black Panther character, while, more recently, author Yehudi Mercato drew upon his Mexican-Jewish family for his middle-grade graphic memoir, “Chunky.” Meanwhile, some traditional Jewish texts have gotten the graphic novel treatment, including Mendes’ recent takes on the weekly Torah portion. [...]

That creativity was on full display Sunday as creators spoke at panels such as “Jewish Folklore in Comics,” “Queering Jewish Comics” and “Getting Past Ashkenormativity and Secularism in Comics.” Jewish publishers sold a variety of books and individual creators signed their work and mingled with fans. One table was run by the mother of a writer of a Holocaust education comic who couldn’t make the trip from Los Angeles.

It's regrettable they've continued sugarcoating BP material that builds on some atrocious storytelling, right down to Ta-Nehisi Coates' own propaganda. And Coates is one of the worst far-leftists to ever be welcomed into the entertainment industry. If he could speak as abusively as he did about 9-11, there's no telling what he could say about Jews. I wouldn't want to own any of his comics based on what a far-left ideologue he happens to be. And that part about "queering" is quite telling on its own. It echoes what only so many far-leftists have been pushing and indoctrinating at schools, even going so far as to distort the Bible with it. Does that sit well with them?

Now since we're on the subject, The Forward followed up on the news about Arnon Shorr and Joshua Edelglass's Brother's Keeper. I hope this GN's been highlighted at the convention, because, as noted again by the Forward:

“One of my friends pointed at the screen and he said, ‘We need this. We need this now. We need this yesterday,’” Shorr recalled. “I was too close to it, I think, to see it or to recognize it,” he said. But his friend helped him realize that “this is a reminder that we’ve been here before and we’ve survived this before.”

As Edelglass kept pace with the drawings and Tomić with the colors, Shorr tried to figure out how to make the book widely available sooner rather than later. They’d bring copies to JewCE as planned, but they also made the comic available to order in hard copy online and to purchase as an e-book. Shorr is also working with his parents to translate the story into Hebrew and is looking into options for sharing Brother’s Keeper in Israel. [...]

But sitting down to draw night after night in the days and weeks following Oct. 7 was therapeutic for Edelglass. “The story moves from battle and turmoil to great hope,” Edelglass said. And he and Shorr hope it can be a source of comfort and hope for readers as well.

Let's hope it'll be translated into Hebrew, and practically as many other languages as possible; everyone and anyone the world over who's a realist needs to know this kind of history. And again, let's hope the convention at Manhattan's History Center stands solidly by it. That said, it's still a shame said convention is pushing leftist propaganda, and the JTA once again sugarcoated how the Jewish Black Panther was crafted.

For Independence Day 2022

The inimitable Paul Harvey (1918-2009) and worth your time:

Truly, we stand upon the shoulders of giants.  

Oh, the sacrifices those men made for liberty! 

May we be worthy to have received that liberty!

Voices From The Past

Please take a few minutes to watch the two short videos below:





Below is the most-watched YouTube documentary on the topic of the 1918 Spanish Flu epidemic — if you have time to watch (over 4 million views):


Now for my family's own stories.......


My father's younger sister, about age 7, died of "the aftereffects of the flu." Something like the 1990 film Awakenings? Full movie HERE at YouTube, albeit poor quality.  I highly recommend the film! It is available via Amazon Prime Video.

Dad occasionally spoke of what happened when his sister died: "The undertaker embalmed Chrissie at the house — and dumped the blood behind the barn."  The funeral service and burial were private.  The influenza didn't stop until everything was shut down: schools, funerals, churches, etc.  And the government refused to believe that something terrible was happening with Americans' health.  Until, that is, bodies began piling up on the sidewalks and in the streets of Washington, D.C.

My maternal grandmother (1898-1981) had a robust immune system. It fell to her to take care of her brother Walter, who brought influenza to their remote location in the mountains of East Tennessee when he was discharged from the US Army, fell ill himself, and gave the flu to his brother-in-law Fred, my grandmother's husband.  My grandmother sent her two children, one born in 1916 and the other in 1918 to her parents' farm and took care of Walter and Fred.

My grandmother related the story of those days in this way: "I got almost no sleep.  I went back and forth between the river for cold water and the menfolks' foreheads.  They were out of their heads with fever.  My sister brought food, called to me, and set the food down about 25 feet from the house; I fetched the food from there.  I don't remember how long all this went on.  Seemed like forever.  But Walter and Fred got well, and life went back to normal."  I asked Wawa how she stood those weeks of hard work as a nurse.  Her response: "Life isn't about what you want to do.  Life is about what you have to do."

A view of the front lines of this grim war against Coronavirus (dated March 23, 2020): The Growing Chaos Inside New York’s Hospitals.

And one more thing...in the immortal words of Gilda Radner:

Happy Birthday, Land That I Love!

Never forget why we celebrate this day:

The Declaration of Independence was a statement adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4, 1776, which announced that the thirteen American colonies, then at war with Great Britain, regarded themselves as independent states, and no longer a part of the British Empire. John Adams put forth a resolution earlier in the year which made a formal declaration inevitable. A committee was assembled to draft the formal declaration, to be ready when congress voted on independence. Adams persuaded the committee to select Thomas Jefferson to compose the original draft of the document, which congress would edit to produce the final version. The Declaration was ultimately a formal explanation of why Congress had voted on July 2 to declare independence from Great Britain, more than a year after the outbreak of the American Revolutionary War. The Independence Day of the United States of America is celebrated on July 4, the day Congress approved the wording of the Declaration.

Quotes from signers:

"Believe me, dear Sir: there is not in the British empire a man who more cordially loves a union with Great Britain than I do. But, by the God that made me, I will cease to exist before I yield to a connection on such terms as the British Parliament propose; and in this, I think I speak the sentiments of America."
Thomas Jefferson

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin

"I always consider the settlement of America with reverence and wonder, as the opening of a grand scene and design in providence, for the illumination of the ignorant and the emancipation of the slavish part of mankind all over the earth."
John Adams

"There, I guess King George will be able to read that."
John Hancock

"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right...and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers."
John Adam

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
Thomas Jefferson

"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure it will cost us to maintain this declaration, and support and defend these states. Yet through all the gloom I see the rays of ravishing light and glory. I can see that the end is worth all the means. This is our day of deliverance."
John Adams

"Equal and exact justice to all men...freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of person under the protection of the habeas corpus; and trial by juries impartially selected,these principles form the bright constellation which has gone before us."
Thomas Jefferson

"We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately."
Benjamin Franklin

How brave our Founders were! They risked all so that we could enjoy their legacy.

May we today, in the 21st Century, stand up and support the principles declared in our Declaration of Independence!

A POTUS Dad Defends His Daughter (1950)

From the blog Geeez:

Ivanka’s insulted and Dad steps in…..And it’s been done BEFORE!

When President Harry Truman picked up his “Washington Post” early on December 6, 1950, to read a review of his daughter Margaret Truman’s singing performance, he was livid. Though conceding that Miss Truman was “extremely attractive,” Paul Hume, the “Post’s” music critic, stated bluntly that “Miss Truman cannot sing very well” and “has not improved” over the years. The president wrote the following letter to the 34-year old Hume, whom he compared to the columnist Westbrook Pegler (“a rat,” in Truman’s view).

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

Mr Hume:

I’ve just read your lousy review of Margaret’s concert. I’ve come to the conclusion that you are an “eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay.”

It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-cock as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you’re off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work.

Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you’ll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below!

Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you’ll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry.

H.S.T.

Read the rest HERE.

Truman's defense of his daughter makes Trump's defense of Ivanka look mild, IMO.

Independence Day Reading

Excerpt from Our Once Sacred Honor by Mustang of A Texas View:

...These men [who signed the Declaration of Independence] knew full well what they were doing was dangerous to themselves, to their families, and to their wealth and property. They had everything to lose, and little to gain by signing this instrument of the American Revolution. If the revolution should fail, these men would forfeit their lives. If these men were to succeed, then they faced years of struggling to establish a new government, a new country. Had anyone done such a thing before? No.

These men did suffer.

[...]

More than half of these fifty-six men suffered during the American Revolution. Five were taken into custody by the British and died in captivity; 12 lost their homes and property, two lost their sons in the war, one had both of his sons captured by the British, nine of the signers died in the war of disease or a merciful bullet. They pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Every man fulfilled this pledge; every man kept the faith. Every man paid the price exacted of him. If only these leftists who condemn the founding fathers had even a modicum of similar devotion … but no, they’ve chosen a different path for themselves —and for us, as well.

Read it all HERE. Worth your time.

The Story Of Our Declaration Of Independence

From Conservative Hideout 2.0:

[The Declaration of Independence] was penned by the great Thomas Jefferson when he was but thirty three-years old. He was one of a committee of five that were formed to bring forth the reasons for our separation from Great Britain. The committee members were (in no particular order):

Thomas Jefferson
John Adams
Benjamin Franklin
Robert R. Livingston
Roger Sherman

A vote was taken by the committee as to who would draft the statement and Jefferson came in first followed by Adams. An interesting footnote is that Adams presented Jefferson with his reasons as to why he ought to be the one to pen the document.

“Reason first—You are a Virginian, and a Virginian ought to appear at the head of this business. Reason second—I am obnoxious, suspected and unpopular. You are very much otherwise. Reason third—You can write ten times better than I can.”

Jefferson wrote the document in his residence where he occupied the entire second floor of a three story house owned by a bricklayer named Graff. It was said that after Jefferson’s death the baby infant of Graff was consistently told that he had often sat on a great man’s knee.

The writing itself took place in the parlor of Jefferson’s domicile on a desk that contained a small writing box that was of Jefferson’s own design. He had previously rented from a cabinet maker who constructed it from drawings made by Jefferson. During the last year of his life, he gave it to the husband of his favorite granddaughter, Ellen Randolph. He was to have said about the box, “It claims no merit of particular beauty. It is plain, neat, convenient and, taking no more room on the writing table than a moderate quarto volume, it displays itself sufficiently for any writing.” (Quarto volume is what we recognize as a middle-sized hardbound book.)

Jefferson never claimed originality of the idea of governance, “of the people, by the people and for the people,” instead he remarked that he was only distilling “common sense” on the subject. True the idea of democracy dates back to the Romans and the Greeks, but in Jefferson’s time, it was a very hot topic. Jefferson expounded on the idea of natural law and the nature of government.

In the second paragraph, Jefferson articulated an entire system of philosophy with his theory on that natural law and governance issue. It stems from property rights and builds upon that. Jefferson did not separate property rights from political rights. For he felt that if one is denied property rights, then one cannot truly have political rights. Property is of course more than just what one owns, it goes to what one does to obtain property. Therefore property, as expressed by Jefferson is one’s individuality. If a government takes 40 or 50% (or more) of a person’s income (property), then that person is not truly free. For when half of one’s work goes to the government, it ceases to belong to that person.

This idea is expressed in what is possibly the most famous sentence in the American lexicon:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

But when presented to Congress, over twenty five percent of Jefferson’s original document was deleted. In what was at the time, a controversial move, Congress struck out what they viewed as a scathing indictment of the slave trade. Of course, Jefferson resented the changes and said that the passages were “struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves & who on the contrary still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little under those censures; for tho’ their people have very few slaves themselves, yet they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.” Congress also got rid of passages that conveyed a censure on the people of England. Jefferson’s reaction? “…the pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with still haunted the minds of many.”

At least Congress left the ideas of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. However, they did change it from “We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable…” to “We hold these truths to be self-evident…”

Lastly, Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence wasn’t really a declaration of independence at all. Rather it was an explanation of the actual declaration formally approved by Congress two days before, on July 2, 1776. That declaration was written by Richard Henry Lee, an active and respected patriot of Virginia’s congressional delegation.

It was titled: “A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled.” Therefore our actual Declaration of Independence wasn’t even called that. And ironically, John Adams was known to have said in a now-famous letter to his wife that future generations of Americans would celebrate America’s independence from England on July 2nd and it would become a great American holiday. Of course, as we all know and history has shown, we celebrate our independence on the date that Jefferson’s document explaining our reasoning behind our declaration of independence was announced, July 4th.

The Fate Of Dissidents

Let's take a look at the fate of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. Remember that their cause succeeded.

Watch Founding Fathers: Who Were They and What Happened to Them? on PBS. See more from PBS NewsHour.

Think about this:

[T]he methods of communication in the 18th century American life may have helped keep their identities secret. "It would have been very difficult for a member of the British troops to actually find out in any given place who in that community had something to do with the Declaration of Independence because of the complete lack of communication," co-author Denise Kiernan said. Their actions deemed treasonous, some were imprisoned and treated as "high value prisoners," while others, who enjoyed great wealth in their prime, died penniless. A few emerged from the revolution to live long and happy lives...

As we few embark upon the new role of this blog, we need to go into this with our eyes wide open.

I've made my decision to throw my lot in with what matters most: American principles, not "American" principles.

Independence Day Reading: Caesar Rodney

See this information at Political Tea Leaves. Excerpt:

...Rodney’s vote for independence was considered high treason and caused him to be branded a traitor to the Crown. As history records, Caesar Rodney gave up the possibility of receiving medical treatment in London because he voted and pledged his life, fortune and sacred honor for American Independence....

Read the whole thing.

Longfellow's Christmas

REMEMBERING PEARL HARBOR

Even though 70 years have passed since December 7, 1941, interment services continue in Honolulu:

Pearl Harbor:Final Wishes from Andrew Breese on Vimeo.

Today's Recommended Reading

See FLASHBACK 1972:…..Police Officer Executed in NY Mosque at Logan's Warning. Note the involvement of Louis Farrakhan and Charlie Rangel.

Too Late to Apologize: A Declaration

I believe that the following has been previously posted here at IBA. But it bears reposting on Independence Day:

A History Of Assassins And Would-Be Assassins

Check out this post by Beamish of The Crank Files.

Excerpt:

There’s been a lot of nonsense talk attempting to smear the right-wing for the murderous passions of Jared Lee Loughner, who was arrested on scene for a killing spree in Arizona which targeted Democratic Congresswoman Gabreille Giffords. Leftism, the field of inter-related political, social, and economic philosophies which have the collective historical distinction of being responsible for the violent deaths of over 300 million people and counting worldwide, would seem to be an easy profile to make in determining the political motivations of this assassin. Yet, the left has gone into overdrive attempting to portray Loughner as a right-winger and smear conservative groups as the catalyst for his abhorrent actions, snidely suggesting that it is somehow “obvious” that the right-wing is responsible for creating this cretin.

Does the left have any historical rationale for making the “political assassin must be a right-winger” case?

Let’s have a closer look at the infamous assassins and would-be assassins who have targeted politicians throughout US history, shall we?...

Read the rest HERE. Worth your time.

Lost Icon

MSNBC:

Geraldine Doyle, inspiration for 'Rosie the Riveter,' dies at 86

By Elizabeth Chuck

With a red and white bandana in her hair and factory worker uniform sleeves rolled up to reveal her bulging biceps, Rosie the Riveter was painted on a World War II recruitment poster in 1942. But for four decades, the real Rosie the Riveter had no idea she was the woman who inspired it.

Perhaps it was because Geraldine Doyle left her factory job after two weeks – or because she didn’t actually have bulging biceps – that Doyle, who died at 86 years old on Sunday in Lansing, Mich., didn’t know for so long that she was the model for what would became a symbol of women’s empowerment.

Doyle was 17 in 1942 and had been hired as a metal presser at a factory close to her home in Inkster, Mich., to help the war effort, her daughter Stephanie Gregg told the New York Times. One day, a United Press International photographer came to the steelworks factory and took a picture of Doyle leaning over machinery, a red and white polka-dot bandana covering her hair (see the original photo here). Later that year, the government commissioned artist J. Howard Miller to produce morale-boosting posters that would motivate workers and recruit women to join the war workforce. The UPI photo of Doyle, a slender brunette that her daughter calls “a glamour girl,” caught his eye.

Meanwhile, Doyle – a cellist – learned that a worker had injured her hands at the factory, and decided to get a safer job at a soda fountain and bookshop in Ann Arbor, according to the Washington Post.

In 1984, married to a dentist and a mother to five children, Doyle came across an article in former AARP publication Modern Maturity magazine that connected her photo with the wartime poster, which she hadn’t seen before.

“The arched eyebrows, the beautiful lips, the shape of the face – that’s her,” daughter Gregg told the Times. But, she said, “she didn’t have those big muscles. She was busy playing cello.”

Nonetheless, when she saw it, she said, “This is me!” Gregg told the Lansing State Journal.

Rosie the Riveter became a lasting emblem. In the early 1940s, Red Evans and John Jacob Loeb wrote a song named after her. In 1943, the Saturday Evening Post put a Norman Rockwell illustration of another female worker with the name “Rosie” painted on her lunch pail. In 1999, the U.S. Postal Service created a “We Can Do It!” stamp.

For years, Doyle signed Rosie the Riveter t-shirts, posters, and more. While many profited from her image, she never charged a penny to fans, her daughter said.

"She would say that she was the 'We Can Do It!' girl," Gregg told the Lansing State Journal. "She never wanted to take anything away from the other Rosies."

December 7, 1941

(Hat tip to Patriot's Corner):

How Is Such Ignorance Possible?

With a hat tip to Brooke:

George Washington's Thanksgiving Proclamation

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor -- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me "to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness."

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be -- That we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks -- for His kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation -- for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of His Providence which we experienced in the tranquility [sic], union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed -- for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One [capital O] now lately instituted -- for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which He hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions -- to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually -- to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed -- to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn [sic] kindness onto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord -- To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease [sic] of science among them and us -- and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.

Given under my hand at the City of New York
the third day of October in the year of our Lord 1789
George Washington

h/t Jawa

September 17 Is Constitution Day

This Constitution Day 2009 marks the 222nd anniversary of the United States Constitution.

Mark Alexander of the Patriot Post is writing two essays about our heritage of freedom through the Constitution.

Here are the final three paragraphs from the first essay:

The Rule of Law (Part 1)

More recently, Justice Antonin Scalia said of the "living constitution": "[There's] the argument of flexibility and it goes something like this: The Constitution is over 200 years old and societies change. It has to change with society, like a living organism, or it will become brittle and break. But you would have to be an idiot to believe that; the Constitution is not a living organism; it is a legal document. It says something and doesn't say other things."

Justice Clarence Thomas follows, "[T]here are really only two ways to interpret the Constitution -- try to discern as best we can what the framers intended or make it up. No matter how ingenious, imaginative or artfully put, unless interpretive methodologies are tied to the original intent of the framers, they have no basis in the Constitution. ... To be sure, even the most conscientious effort to adhere to the original intent of the framers of our Constitution is flawed, as all methodologies and human institutions are; but at least originalism has the advantage of being legitimate and, I might add, impartial."

On the political consequences of a "living constitution," Justice Scalia concludes plainly, "If you think aficionados of a living Constitution want to bring you flexibility, think again. ... As long as judges tinker with the Constitution to 'do what the people want,' instead of what the document actually commands, politicians who pick and confirm new federal judges will naturally want only those who agree with them politically."

Read the whole thing.

Federalist 45

The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered
For the Independent Fournal.
James Madison

To the People of the State of New York:

HAVING shown that no one of the powers transferred to the federal government is unnecessary or improper, the next question to be considered is, whether the whole mass of them will be dangerous to the portion of authority left in the several States.

The adversaries to the plan of the convention, instead of considering in the first place what degree of power was absolutely necessary for the purposes of the federal government, have exhausted themselves in a secondary inquiry into the possible consequences of the proposed degree of power to the governments of the particular States. But if the Union, as has been shown, be essential to the security of the people of America against foreign danger; if it be essential to their security against contentions and wars among the different States; if it be essential to guard them against those violent and oppressive factions which embitter the blessings of liberty, and against those military establishments which must gradually poison its very fountain; if, in a word, the Union be essential to the happiness of the people of America, is it not preposterous, to urge as an objection to a government, without which the objects of the Union cannot be attained, that such a government may derogate from the importance of the governments of the individual States? Was, then, the American Revolution effected, was the American Confederacy formed, was the precious blood of thousands spilt, and the hard-earned substance of millions lavished, not that the people of America should enjoy peace, liberty, and safety, but that the government of the individual States, that particular municipal establishments, might enjoy a certain extent of power, and be arrayed with certain dignities and attributes of sovereignty? We have heard of the impious doctrine in the Old World, that the people were made for kings, not kings for the people. Is the same doctrine to be revived in the New, in another shape that the solid happiness of the people is to be sacrificed to the views of political institutions of a different form? It is too early for politicians to presume on our forgetting that the public good, the real welfare of the great body of the people, is the supreme object to be pursued; and that no form of government whatever has any other value than as it may be fitted for the attainment of this object. Were the plan of the convention adverse to the public happiness, my voice would be, Reject the plan. Were the Union itself inconsistent with the public happiness, it would be, Abolish the Union. In like manner, as far as the sovereignty of the States cannot be reconciled to the happiness of the people, the voice of every good citizen must be, Let the former be sacrificed to the latter. How far the sacrifice is necessary, has been shown. How far the unsacrificed residue will be endangered, is the question before us.

Several important considerations have been touched in the course of these papers, which discountenance the supposition that the operation of the federal government will by degrees prove fatal to the State governments. The more I revolve the subject, the more fully I am persuaded that the balance is much more likely to be disturbed by the preponderancy of the last than of the first scale.

We have seen, in all the examples of ancient and modern confederacies, the strongest tendency continually betraying itself in the members, to despoil the general government of its authorities, with a very ineffectual capacity in the latter to defend itself against the encroachments. Although, in most of these examples, the system has been so dissimilar from that under consideration as greatly to weaken any inference concerning the latter from the fate of the former, yet, as the States will retain, under the proposed Constitution, a very extensive portion of active sovereignty, the inference ought not to be wholly disregarded. In the Achaean league it is probable that the federal head had a degree and species of power, which gave it a considerable likeness to the government framed by the convention. The Lycian Confederacy, as far as its principles and form are transmitted, must have borne a still greater analogy to it. Yet history does not inform us that either of them ever degenerated, or tended to degenerate, into one consolidated government. On the contrary, we know that the ruin of one of them proceeded from the incapacity of the federal authority to prevent the dissensions, and finally the disunion, of the subordinate authorities. These cases are the more worthy of our attention, as the external causes by which the component parts were pressed together were much more numerous and powerful than in our case; and consequently less powerful ligaments within would be sufficient to bind the members to the head, and to each other.

In the feudal system, we have seen a similar propensity exemplified. Notwithstanding the want of proper sympathy in every instance between the local sovereigns and the people, and the sympathy in some instances between the general sovereign and the latter, it usually happened that the local sovereigns prevailed in the rivalship for encroachments. Had no external dangers enforced internal harmony and subordination, and particularly, had the local sovereigns possessed the affections of the people, the great kingdoms in Europe would at this time consist of as many independent princes as there were formerly feudatory barons.

The State government will have the advantage of the Federal government, whether we compare them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respectively vested in them; to the predilection and probable support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other.

The State governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the federal government; whilst the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. Without the intervention of the State legislatures, the President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share in his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from the people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men, whose influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State legislatures. Thus, each of the principal branches of the federal government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence, which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing towards them. On the other side, the component parts of the State governments will in no instance be indebted for their appointment to the direct agency of the federal government, and very little, if at all, to the local influence of its members.

The number of individuals employed under the Constitution of the United States will be much smaller than the number employed under the particular States. There will consequently be less of personal influence on the side of the former than of the latter. The members of the legislative, executive, and judiciary departments of thirteen and more States, the justices of peace, officers of militia, ministerial officers of justice, with all the county, corporation, and town officers, for three millions and more of people, intermixed, and having particular acquaintance with every class and circle of people, must exceed, beyond all proportion, both in number and influence, those of every description who will be employed in the administration of the federal system. Compare the members of the three great departments of the thirteen States, excluding from the judiciary department the justices of peace, with the members of the corresponding departments of the single government of the Union; compare the militia officers of three millions of people with the military and marine officers of any establishment which is within the compass of probability, or, I may add, of possibility, and in this view alone, we may pronounce the advantage of the States to be decisive. If the federal government is to have collectors of revenue, the State governments will have theirs also. And as those of the former will be principally on the seacoast, and not very numerous, whilst those of the latter will be spread over the face of the country, and will be very numerous, the advantage in this view also lies on the same side. It is true, that the Confederacy is to possess, and may exercise, the power of collecting internal as well as external taxes throughout the States; but it is probable that this power will not be resorted to, except for supplemental purposes of revenue; that an option will then be given to the States to supply their quotas by previous collections of their own; and that the eventual collection, under the immediate authority of the Union, will generally be made by the officers, and according to the rules, appointed by the several States. Indeed it is extremely probable, that in other instances, particularly in the organization of the judicial power, the officers of the States will be clothed with the correspondent authority of the Union. Should it happen, however, that separate collectors of internal revenue should be appointed under the federal government, the influence of the whole number would not bear a comparison with that of the multitude of State officers in the opposite scale. Within every district to which a federal collector would be allotted, there would not be less than thirty or forty, or even more, officers of different descriptions, and many of them persons of character and weight, whose influence would lie on the side of the State.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.

The operations of the federal government will be most extensive and important in times of war and danger; those of the State governments, in times of peace and security. As the former periods will probably bear a small proportion to the latter, the State governments will here enjoy another advantage over the federal government. The more adequate, indeed, the federal powers may be rendered to the national defense, the less frequent will be those scenes of danger which might favor their ascendancy over the governments of the particular States.

If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; but that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no apprehensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation may be regarded as the most important; and yet the present Congress have as complete authority to REQUIRE of the States indefinite supplies of money for the common defense and general welfare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the States themselves have been, to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them. Had the States complied punctually with the articles of Confederation, or could their compliance have been enforced by as peaceable means as may be used with success towards single persons, our past experience is very far from countenancing an opinion, that the State governments would have lost their constitutional powers, and have gradually undergone an entire consolidation. To maintain that such an event would have ensued, would be to say at once, that the existence of the State governments is incompatible with any system whatever that accomplishes the essental purposes of the Union.

PUBLIUS.